Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

FISHING VESSEL "CARINTHIA" (LOSS)

Mr. Myles: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the feared loss of the Buckie-registered fishing vessel "Carinthia" in Orkney waters and the possible tragic loss of the six men on board.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): The fishing vessel "Carinthia" sailed from Buckie at about midnight on 24–25 June bound for the fishing grounds off Noup Head, north-west of Orkney, with a crew of six on board.
At 1900 hours on Wednesday 27 June a lifebuoy marked "Carinthia" was found on the west side of Rousay, Orkney. This caused inquiries to be made by the coastguard to try to establish the ship's whereabouts.
It was established that the vessel's last known contact had been at 0900 hours on Tuesday 26 June, when "Carinthia" radioed the fishing vessel "Crimmond" that she was making for the Minches. Her position at this time was about 27 miles north-west of the mainland of the Orkneys. There was a north-westerly wind of force 8 at this time. The fishing vessel "Crimmond" was unable to regain radio contact with "Carinthia" an hour or two later.
Following the finding of the lifebuoy, coastguard and coastal radio stations in Scotland immediately broadcast an alert, and ships in the area started searching. The Kirkwall and Stromness life-boats

were launched, and an RAF Nimrod commenced searching at first light on Thursday 28 June in the Wick-Orkney-Shetlands area. The search area covered approximately 2,500 square miles, and it was hampered by low cloud in the initial stages.
I regret to have to inform the House that, following a thorough search of the area, the search and rescue operation has been abandoned and the "Carinthia" must be presumed lost. My Department has commenced a preliminary inquiry into this casualty.
I am sure that hon. Members would wish to join me in expressing deepest sympathy for the families and relatives of the crew of the "Carinthia" and, indeed, for the whole fishing community of Buckie.

Mr. Myles: In thanking my hon. Friend for that statement and for expressing sympathy, I take it that when I call on the relatives of those who were on board—Eddie Lawson, skipper, of 12 St. Peter's Road, Buckie, Charles Cargill, of 7 East Carlton Terrace, Buckie, James Lobban, senior, and James Lobban, junior, of 97 Seatown, Buckie, David Flett, of 14 Cliff Street, Findochty, and Richard Mair, of 56 Netherha Road, Buckie—I carry the heartfelt sympathy of everyone in this House.

Mr. John Smith: On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to say that we associate ourselves with the expressions of regret from the Minister and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) at the loss of life on this occasion. May I ask the Minister whether the inquiry will be carried out with the usual diligence that the Department of Trade applies to these matters?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I think that we are all conscious of the dangers of fishing and the way in which fishermen bear those dangers, and sometimes pay the cost. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall seek to ensure that the Department carries on those high standards of diligence that it upheld when he was Secretary of State.

DIVISIONS (CONDUCT OF MEMBERS)

Mr. Speaker: I have a very serious statement to make to the House. I received a report from the Deputy Serjeant at Arms of the incidents in the Aye Lobby last night. I am told that an hon. Member was holding up a paper with the words "Stay here" written on it. This is a gross interference with our democratic procedures in this House. Anyone who seeks to interfere with our voting procedures is worthy of censure. If I had had this report last night I would, like my predecessors in the Chair, have had no hesitation whatever in naming the hon. Member.
I must advise the House that anyone who causes undue delay in the taking of a vote in the Division Lobbies will incur serious displeasure if it happens in the future.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Lobby last night, there was, indeed, a notice on display which said "Stay here," held by one of my colleagues. It had been on display throughout the whole of the proceedings, beginning with the very first vote of the night at around 10 p.m.
The reason for that "Stay here" notice was quite clear. We were saying—at least I was not, but the person concerned and those of us who believed in the need for the Oppositon to fight the Bill were saying—that we wanted every potential voting Member of the Opposition to remain behind not for that Division only but for the succeeding Division, the further Division, and the Division that was unfortunately called off because of the rumbustious attitude of the Tories on one occasion, which, in the main, was responsible for the failure of the Bill, taking into account all the minutes that were lost.
I remember seeing that notice, but I remember seeing it at 10 p.m., 10.15 p.m., 10.30 p.m. and, finally, at the time of the very last Division. That notice would have remained on show, Mr. Speaker, so long as we needed to remind our troops to stay in the Lobby to vote. I would also say to you, Mr. Speaker—and also to the Serjeant at Arms, who saw that notice—that it has been a regular practice

during the whole nine years that I have been a Member of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to reply to the hon. Member. The fact is that a Division last night was prevented by the undue time that it took. It took longer than usual. Only just over 100 Members went through the Lobby, and it clearly could have been completed much earlier. I must tell the House that if anyone seeks to delay voting procedures in this House he is seeking to interfere with the democratic process, which is a very serious offence.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Specifically because of the various comments, and the chatter that was going on at the time, I checked with the Clerks on the time that the Division was called, the subsequent eight minutes, and the clearing of the Lobby. On examination, Mr. Speaker, I think that you will find that the last Division was by no means extraordinarily lengthy and, indeed, was on a par with the other Divisions that had taken place. From the time of the calling of the last Division there was no possibility that another Division could be called in view of the reasonable amount of time that was being taken by the Division.

Mr. Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Though no one has named me, I was the hon. Member holding up the piece of paper. But I have to report to you, Sir, that the words on the paper were:
Please stay at least two more Divisions.
That was subsequently altered to:
Please stay at least one more Division.
Those were the words on the piece of paper, Sir, which is still in my file, which is in my car in the underground car park. If you wish, Sir, I shall now show it to you. I was holding the piece of paper, standing between the two Clerks in the Lobby. At no time after I had voted did I move back into the Lobby. I did not know who was still to come through the Lobby. It was information asking my colleagues to stay because there could have been up to 10 Divisions last night. I was generous in saying that there would be at least two more. You have not had all the information, Sir, about the words on that piece of paper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not wish to argue with hon. Members. The business was timed to conclude at 10.45 p.m. and it was quite impossible for there to be 10 Divisions, because of the time factor. The Division to which I have referred took as long as it would have taken had we had a three-line Whip with heavy voting in the Lobbies, though only just over 100 Members went through.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS)

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the main business to be taken by Ministers in the European Community during July. The more detailed written forecast was deposited on 27 June. At present, four meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for July.
The Finance Council will meet on 16 July and is expected to discuss the general economic prospects of the Community with particular reference to the effect of oil price rises, and more specific discussion of items remitted from last week's European Council.
The Budget Council will meet on 23 July and will establish the draft general Community budget for 1980.
The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 24 July. Ministers will again discuss the Commission's proposals for regulation of State aids to the steel industry. They will also discuss the outstanding points on the GATT multilateral trade negotiations and the negotiations with China for an agreement on trade in textiles.
The Agriculture Council will meet on 23 and 24 July. It will resume discussion of the organisation of the market in potatoes and is also expected to consider agricultural structural problems in the Community.

Mr. Shore: I thank the Lord Privy Seal for what, I believe, is the first oral statement in this Parliament on forthcoming Community issues. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the mounting anxiety on many aspects of EEC policy affecting the affairs of this country—anxieties that were certainly reinforced by the statement, only a week ago, by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The right hon. Gentleman will know of the importance that the House attaches to general statements on Community business. Will he therefore affirm that it is his intention to make regular oral statements to the House, and will he, in future, see that they are made on days other than Friday, when so many right


hon. and hon. Members who have constituencies outside London are, inevitably, in those constituencies?
Turning to the statement, I should like to ask three questions. First, with regard to the Economic and Financial Council, following the European summit meeting last week and, in particular, the agreed statement that priority should be given to measures that enable a satisfactory level of growth to be attained in the Community, what proposals has the right hon. Gentleman for countering the known deflationary impact of our own economic policies as pursued in the recent Budget?
Secondly, with regard to steel, which is a very important issue, affecting, as it does, the prosperity and livelihood of so many whose jobs are at present threatened, I hope that there is no question of the right hon. Gentleman accepting any limitations on the regional and other industrial aids that we give to our hard-pressed industry. Any such move would raise major questions not only on the practical problems that would be faced by the industry but on the whole vires of the confidence of the Commission in this area.
Lastly, what has happened to the Lomé Convention renegotiations? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what difficulties are being experienced, and what the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is to them? In view of the great importance of the Lomé Convention, affecting as it does so many other countries, will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking his hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for overseas development to make a further statement at the appropriate time?

Sir I. Gilmour: With regard to procedure, the day on which statements are made is not entirely a matter for me, though I agree that Friday is not always the best day. However, the House has been very busy. I shall not undertake to make an oral statement every time because the business will not always justify it. I suspect that that is normal.
Regarding my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget, I do not think that matter arises in connection with this statement.
I agree that steel is a very important matter. In our view, there is doubt about

whether article 95 of the Treaty of Paris is an adequate basis for the decision. We are looking at ways in which this difficulty, which has significant legal and constitutional implications, can be overcome. However, we are confident that the present text would not curtail investment in the iron and steel industry, or damage employment within that industry.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern regarding the Lomé Convention. There is a detailed question on the Order Paper today, to which I shall obviously give a full reply. Briefly, I can tell the House that, as a result of the ministerial conference in Brussels from 25 to 27 June, negotiations for a new five-year convention have now been concluded and the ACP countries are considering their decisions on the resulting text.

Mr. Spearing: I reiterate the discontent that has been expressed about statements on a Friday. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about that? The pressure on time yesterday was such that perhaps he will reconsider this in the future.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first meeting on 16 July, following the European Council meeting, may require regulations, and one of them is mentioned? Will the Government put a block on new regulations that are made, or, indeed, those that are outstanding, to enable the new Scrutiny Committee, when it is set up, to look at them and to recommend debates to the House? How many regulations are being reserved by the Government until the House has had, as is the practice, the opportunity to discuss them?

Sir I. Gilmour: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that we shall place automatic blocks on anything that is decided in Brussels merely because this House has not yet set up a Scrutiny Committee. I do not think that would be the right way in which to proceed. However, I can tell him that a Scrutiny Committee will shortly be set up. That will be much welcomed by the whole House, including the hon. Gentleman and myself. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is discussing this matter through the usual channels, and I think that the Committee will be set up very quickly.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when making oral statements of this sort it is in a way more interesting to hear the results of past meetings than a mere agenda for the future? We had an interesting example just now from my right hon. Friend's own lips when we learnt of the very satisfactory results of the Lomé renegotiation. Secondly, can he tell us whether the Finance Ministers, when they meet in July, will be discussing the results, effect and experience of the six months of operation of the European monetary system, and whether the new, welcome initiative that the Government have taken will be followed further?

Sir I. Gilmour: I agree that it is much more interesting to discuss what has happened than what may happen, but this is the procedure of the House, and I gather that it has gained the approval of the House. Therefore, we are going along with it. If a substantial body of opinion were to ask us to alter it, we should do so. I expect that the EMS will be discussed at the Council meeting, but, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, the substantive review of the EMS is to take place in September.

Mr. Benn: What arrangements does the Community intend to make to discuss the energy situation? This was not referred to at all in the Queen's Speech. However, it was central to the meeting of the European Heads of State, and it is now being discussed in Tokyo. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Energy Council is to be summoned? Will he tell the Leader of the House that in view of the central importance of energy the House of Commons must discuss it before the end of July, in order to bring its mind to bear on problems that will dominate the economic, industrial and social life of this country and the Western world over the next year or two, and may be much further into the future?

Sir I. Gilmour: I am sure that the whole House agrees with the right hon. Gentleman about the dominating importance of energy. That has, indeed, been demonstrated by the prominence that the subject was given at the European Council at Strasbourg and the prominence that it is currently being given in Tokyo. Since my right hon. Friend

the Leader of the House is present, I do not think that I need to pass on what the right hon. Gentleman said about a debate before the end of July.

Mr. Cryer: I, too, should like to emphasise the point that has been made about announcements of this importance on a Friday, when it is clear that some hon. Members are not here. Will the discussion on 23 July on the preliminary draft budget include a provision for a reduction in our contribution? Has it been agreed in principle that there will be a reduction in our contribution to the budget, or is it merely an examination of possibilities?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the foreign affairs discussion on 23 and 24 July the question of EEC-China textiles will be a delicate and important one? Can he assure us that the interests of the British textile industry, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has been through a long and difficult period of negotiation which has resulted in the renegotiated multi-fibre arrangement, will be fully safeguarded, and that the advent of Chinese textiles will not harm the interests of either the Lancashire or Yorkshire textile industries?

Sir I. Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decision of the Strasbourg conference was that the Commission should be asked to examine the facts and come up with proposals. I doubt whether much progress will have been made by this particular council, although it may have been. Basically, I agree with the second half of what the hon. Gentleman said. We very much hope that an agreement with China can be concluded in the near future, but we have made it perfectly clear that the terms must be consistent with the Community's overall external textile policy, and that means that our textiles must be safeguarded.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Now that it is generally recognised that we are paying far more into the EEC than we are getting out of it, what positive action will be taken by the Government to ensure that we make a more rational contribution? When the CAP is discussed, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that consumers in this country are represented in those discussions, because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been


concerned with the short-term interests of the farming community in this country? We were in a far better position when we had a system of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments than we are at present, when we are subsidising Bavarian and French farmers.

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have been paying attention to what has been happening over the last week. He must surely know what was decided at the European Council in relation to the budget. We agree fully that our contribution is excessive. As I have stated in answer to a previous question, arrangements were made for the Commission to look at this and to come up with proposals. The idea that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is concerned only with producers is quite wrong. The Labour Party seems consistently to have got this wrong. It ignores the fact that last week's agreement was an extremely good one. It is much the best CAP price settlement that we have ever had. There was a milk price freeze for the first time, the average price increase was only 1·2 per cent., and my right hon. Friend avoided a grossly discriminatory co-responsibility levy. It was, therefore, an extremely satisfactory agreement. I think that it would be only honest and generous for the Labour Party to admit it.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even most of the Tory newspapers regarded the so-called success of the mission of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as little more than a sell-out for British consumers? I suppose that there was a hidden benefit for a few farmers, but we expected that to happen. Not only is it wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to deliver these statements on a Friday, when a lot of the moonlighters have gone away and are doing whatever they are doing; it is doubly wrong when measured against the fact that the Foreign Secretary is in the quango down the road. That makes it even worse.
On the question of steel aid, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when I spoke to the 500 Corby steelworkers yesterday they seemed to think that because of Common Market intervention

they looked like losing their jobs unless the Government changed their tune? What is needed is for the Common Market not so much to give money to get people the sack, but to use money to save and create jobs in the steel industry.

Sir I. Gilmour: I am not really deeply concerned about what the hon. Gentleman said to the Corby steelworkers. In fact, what the steel aids aim to do is to help the steel industry, as the hon. Gentlemen well knows. I take the point about making these statements on Friday, but one of the consolations is that I can be reasonably confident that the hon. Gentleman will be here.
It is wrong to say that the consumer did badly out of the agriculture price review.
It is true that many newspapers got it wrong last Friday, probably because of a question of timing. They had details of only half of the agreement by the time they went to press. Therefore, their readers were misled, and I am not sure that all of the newspapers have taken steps to see that their readers have been "un-misled." I hope that they will do so.
The effect of the 1½per cent. increase in common prices, except milk, on the food index was plus 0·25 per cent., and the cost of the butter subsidy puts the equation the other way, because it is minus 0·56 per cent. There is, therefore, a gain. Against that, there is the cost in the food index of the green pound devaluation of 1 per cent., which will certainly, in the long run, help the consumer, and in the short run it helps the farmer very greatly.

Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the very firm stand taken by Heads of State of EEC countries in Tokyo this week on the fact that they will economise, on the other side of the coin, and develop atomic power stations in Britain—a race that we are fast losing—and that we must deplore the attitude of the American Government in imposing no restrictions at all on oil consumption and exacerbating the energy crisis?

Sir I. Gilmour: Economy in fuel consumption is vital to us all. We have to take account of the American constitution, which means that, whatever the President may wish, his will does not


necessarily prevail. I am not sure that condemnations are necessarily very helpful at this point.

Mr. Shore: I think that the right hon. Gentleman protests too much about the agricultural results, but I put that on one side and return to the question of when and what kind of statement should be made. I hope very much that we shall have a regular habit of reports to the House on the results of particular Council meetings, just as we have them in the wake of Agriculture Council meetings. However, on the question of the forward look, which gives a wide-ranging opportunity for hon. Members who are genuinely interested to range over the wide and ever-growing field of matters that come under the competence or interest of the EEC, perhaps I may again press the right hon. Gentleman, in the presence of his colleague the Leader of the House, to think again about the day, as I recall it, under the previous Government, when all statements—when it was necessary to make them; I accept that there can be occasions when the business is only small—were made after Question Time on a Tuesday. I believe that that would be much more to the convenience of Members.

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not think that I have been saying at any point that I regard Friday as an ideal day, but this week there was no other time when this statement could have been made. I cannot give any absolute undertaking, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION (SCRUTINY)

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may trespass on your hospitality, and that of the House, because this point of order is one of great substance but may not be as usual as those otherwise raised.
There has been a tradition and custom in this House that EEC regulations and documents that are likely to be of political, social or economic importance to Britain are placed before the Scrutiny Committee of this House, and that if that Committee regards such documents as being within the criteria laid down, it recommends that a debate be held in

this House. That debate was held prior to the specific and related Council in which the regulation was to be discussed.
For reasons that we all understand we do not have the Scrutiny Committee, but in replying to my question the Lord Privy Seal hinted—indeed, it was more than a hint—that due to the gap that we have it was possible—indeed, he asserted that it was the practice—that the Government would not be inhibited from going ahead and discussing such important regulations in Brussels, even though the Scrutiny Committee had not seen them and even, in his own words, when the House had not had a debate.
I may have been wrong in what I gleaned from the Lord Privy Seal's remarks, but I hope that he will clarify this matter because it is very much a matter of procedure.

Mr. Speaker: One of my primary duties is to guard the interests of this House. I shall look into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. He underestimated his point of order. Although I am not responsible for statements, I am responsible for guarding the rights of the House. I shall look into the matter.

BILLS PRESENTED

LOTTERIES

Mr. Graham Page presented a Bill to amend the law relating to lotteries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 February 1980 and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

CHARITIES

Mr. Graham Page presented a Bill to amend the law relating to charities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 February 1980 and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. Eric S. Helffer, Miss Joan Lestor and Miss Joan Maynard, presented a Bill to amend section 2 of the European Communities Act


1972 to return full and unfettered powers to the United Kingdom Parliament over all legislation enacted by the European Communities which has had, has or would otherwise have legal effect in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

LICENSING (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Neville Trotter presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 in relation to the grant of special hours certificates and the extension of existing on-licences to additional types of liquor: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 July and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That if the Pensioners' Payments and Social Security Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Pensioners' Payments and Social Security [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill—[Mr. Waddington.]

Orders of the Day — PENSIONER' PAYMENTS AND SOCIAL SECURITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read

11.35 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill has two purposes. The first is to pay the Christmas bonus of £10 this coming Christmas and to provide for the payment of bonuses in subsequent years. This carries out the commitment in our election manifesto, where we said
The Christmas bonus, which the last Conservative Government started in 1972, will continue.
The Bill's second purpose is a little more complicated. It is to deal with the earnings limit for the wives of retirement or invalidity pensioners. I will explain this point in a moment, but let me deal first with the Christmas bonus.
The House will remember that on 13 June I announced details of the pension upratings and other social security benefits, which will be paid from next November. In my statement I said that we would pay a £10 bonus this year, and would take powers to pay it in subsequent years, fixing the amount in those years by order. Clause 1 provides for this year's payment, and clause 4 provides for the laying of orders for subsequent years.
This year the Christmas bonus will go to over 10 million people, and the Bill sets out the categories of people who will be entitled. They are exactly the same categories of people who received bonuses in each of the last two years. As before, the. Bill extends to Northern Ireland by agreement with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The relevant week for determining entitlement will be the week beginning 3 December. To qualify for the bonus a person must be present or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, or any other member State of the Community at any time during the week beginning 3 December, and also be entitled to payment of a qualifying benefit for at least one day in that week.
Let me remind the House of the people who will qualify. They are those in receipt of retirement pension, supplementary pension, widow's pension under the national insurance, war pension or industrial injuries schemes, invalidity pension—including non-contributory invalidity pension—attendance allowance, or unemployability supplement under the industrial injuries or war pensions schemes. The bonus will also be paid to war disablement pensioners over pension age who are retired but who are not receiving any of these benefits.
The House may have noticed that there is a sweeping-up clause at the end of clause 2(2), which says, after the definitions:
includes any payment which the Secretary of State accepts as being analogous to it.
This might be of interest to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I have made inquiries in my Department about this clause, because it seemed to me to give some very sweeping powers. I was intrigued to find that it is known in the trade as the Skinner's Horse clause. The hon. Member for Bolsover will no doubt remember that Skinner's Horse was a senior irregular cavalry regiment of the Indian Army; these historic regiments do not always fit tidily into the Ministry of Defence's pattern of war benefits. Therefore, the words are necessary to ensure that all who are entitled, whether they have been members of Skinner's Horse or of another regiment, get their Christmas bonus. I inquired whether the hon. Member for Bolsover's pony might have been included but was told that, for a number of reasons, it was not.
A man who is receiving a qualifying benefit with an increase for his wife will, where they are both over pensionable age, be entitled to a bonus for his wife as well as for himself. The bonus, as in previous years, will be tax free and will not affect entitlement to other benefits or allowances. All that is the same as in recent years.
The cost of paying the bonus this year will be about £108 million. The money will be paid either from the national insurance fund, the Northern Ireland national insurance fund or from the Consolidated Fund, depending on the source of the qualifying benefit that gives a

person title to the bonus. I anticipate that about £100 million will be borne on the national insurance fund, £2½ million on the Northern Ireland national insurance fund and £5½ million on votes.
Turning to clause 4, which gives the Government power to pay the bonus by order in subsequent years, that will enable the Government to increase the amount of the bonus if that is considered appropriate at the time. The House will see—and I understand that there may be discussion about this in Committee—that I am required to have regard to the economic situation and the standard of living in the United Kingdom and such other matters as I consider relevant in determining whether a larger sum should be paid. The existence of that power in the Bill carries no guarantee as to when or by how much future Christmas bonuses may be increased. The important thing is that the power is there and we shall not need a new Bill each year to enable us to pay the bonus.

Mr. Dan Jones: That is an interesting and arresting statement. Is it qualified?

Mr. Jenkin: It is qualified only in that the Bill gives the Government power to lay an order—and the House to accept it—to make the payment each year and to increase the amount above £10. I have made it clear that at this stage there can be no commitment whatever whether and by how much there could be an increase. In our manifesto we said that the Christmas bonus would continue. That was taken, and intended to be taken, as a continuing obligation to pay the bonus.
Turning to clause 5, that deals with the earnings limit for the wives of invalidity or retirement pensioners or of disablement pensioners with an unemployability supplement. As I said in the Budget debate, we intended to hold the current earnings for these wives at the present cash level of £45, even though we are increasing the retirement pensioners' personal earnings limit to £52.
The earnings rule for pensioners goes back to the beginning of the national insurance scheme and was always necessary to reinforce the retirement rule. In 1971 when my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Industry introduced new benefits for the long-term sick


and disabled he proposed, and the House accepted, that a relaxation in the earnings rule for wives would be useful to help the non-working wife of a chronically sick man to take up employment if her domestic circumstances and her husband's condition allowed. That became the basis of the earnings rule for dependent wives and put them on the same basis as retirement pensioners. In subsequent years the earnings limit has been raised substantially for both groups.
However, on the last occasion when the limit was raised to £45 it became apparent to the previous Government—and the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) carried responsibilities in that field—that quite different considerations apply to dependent wives of pensioners and other categories than apply to pensioners themselves. For pensioners, the earnings rule and the earnings limit related to the entitlement to their main pension—their main source of income. For the wives, however, the earnings rule was intended as a test of dependency. The hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) is not in the House at present, but he dealt with the matter on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box.
On 23 January of this year he said:
In the case of retirement pensioners, the function of the earnings rule is to support the retirement conditions. But in the case of an increase of benefit for a wife the earnings rule is a test of dependency.
He went on to say:
In tackling the earnings rule, therefore, it is necessary to separate the effect of rules on the retirement pension from the effect on benefit for the dependent wife.—[Official Report, 23 January 1979; Vol. 961, c. 334.]
In 1971, when the rule was applied to dependent wives, the dependency increase—the extra benefit that a married man got for his wife—was £3·70, and the earnings rule started to bite at £9·50. That amount was rather less than the earnings that a woman could expect from full-time employment. Today a man can get the full £11·70 increase for his wife if her earnings—net of working expenses—are £45, and a reduced rate of increase if she is earning up to £58·70.
It did not seem sensible to our predecessors, nor does it to this Government, that a woman is treated as dependent upon her husband when she may be

earning substantially more than his total benefit as a married pensioner. My Department in recent years has received a growing volume of complaints from nonworking wives who felt that the provision for working wives was unduly generous, in the way that I have described. These matters were also dealt with at some length in the report on the earnings rule presented to Parliament by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) on 24 October 1978.
I have taken time to rehearse the history to demonstrate that we are justified in doing this and that there is no difference of view between the two sides of the House. Entirely different considerations apply to the earnings rule for pensioners from those that apply to the earnings rule for wives. We are committed to phasing out the earnings rule for pensioners over the period of this Parliament. The November uprating will increase the pensioners' earnings limit from £45 to £52, but the Bill holds the earnings limit for the wives of pensioners, invalidity pensioners and others to the present cash limit of £45.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Can my right hon. Friend clearly state that a pensioner who is getting a pension from a firm does not count for the earnings limit?

Mr. Jenkin: That is quite clear. It is a matter of earnings and not occupational pensions.
There is no intention to reduce the £45 figure for wives, but one could understand an argument that even at £45 as a test of dependency that figure is slightly odd. We shall hold it at the present level, and that is what the Bill does.
The change in the law will reduce the amount that would have to be paid out in future years if the amount had gone up from £45 to £52 next November and so on. In the early years, and particularly in 1979–80, the saving will be small but will grow in later years depending on how quickly married women's earnings go up in relation to the £45 figure.
We are in a postion to use the savings that will accrue over the next few years to fulfil a closely related obligation that we have under the EEC directive on equal treatment for men and women in social security by December 1984. Later in this


Session we shall introduce a Bill giving details of the changes in our socal security scheme that will be needed to satisfy the EEC directive. There will be some cost involved. That arises from payments to married women contributors for non-earning husbands and for their children, sometimes referred to as the "sole several" cases.
It therefore seemed to the Government to be sensible and right, when looking somewhat critically at the payments being made for married women as dependants—the operation of the earnings rule—to use any savings to give breadwinner wives better benefits for their dependants when their own earnings are interrupted. That is the intention of the directive and what we are intending to do.
That is the general purpose of the Bill. We need to get the arrangements for the Christmas bonus going as swiftly as we can. That is why we tabled the motion to allow the House to take all stages of the Bill today, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Salford, West for his readiness to assent to that course. I believe that the Bill is entirely uncontroversial, although no doubt there will be matters that we shall want to discuss in Committee. I hope that I have adequately explained the purpose of the Bill and its effect, and that the House will therefore think it right to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Is there provision to safeguard against industrial action? Certain people might see this measure as a good way of introducing industrial action, thereby delaying the implementation of the Bill.

Mr. Jenkin: I hope that very careful thought will be given by anyone who may be contemplating what my hon. Friend suggests to the fact that it would be bound to have an effect on the payments made to pensioners, not only the Christmas bonus, but the general measures of uprating, and so on. These are enormously important payments for the individuals concerned, and any question of their interruption or even delay would be of grave consequence to some of the hardest pressed members of our society.
My hon. Friend will recognise that we cannot give an absolute, unconditional guarantee that there will be no interruption.

There will be certain problems, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State explained at Question Time on Tuesday, but I hope that those in my Department responsible for carrying out the necessary procedures will think very carefully about the effect of their actions on pensioners and on others who depend upon these payments for their livelihood.

11.53 a.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I understand the desire of the Secretary of State to proceed with the Bill, because of the time factor. We are prepared to facilitate its passage through the House today, but I cannot raise two cheers or even one for it, because it has to be set against the current record of the Government and their treatment of pensioners and other groups.
Under this Government, the pensioners will suffer, despite the increase in their pensions scheduled for next November. An inflation of 17½ per cent. has to be met by pensioners between now and November. The £10 Christmas bonus will not assist because it, too, has to be set against a 17½ per cent. inflation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to mislead the House. There may have been an elipse in the language that he used. The figure of 17½ per cent. to which I referred when I made my statement covers November to November—a full 12 months—and not the period between now and November.

Mr. Orme: By November the inflation rate will be 17½ per cent. and there will have been an increase of about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. between now and November. That is the gap that the pensioners have to meet. The £10 Christmas bonus will not be sufficient.
The Labour Government paid the Christmas bonus over the last two years, and it is interesting to recall what the then Opposition had to say about it. The present Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)—has many statements on the record. I will not weary the House with details but she suggested in opposition that the way to deal with the matter was by giving a fifty-third week payment to the pensioners. If the Government of


which she is a member were now proposing such a payment, it would mean that a married couple would be getting £36·10 as a Christmas bonus, and not £20. That is quite a gap.
It appears that the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Lady has waned in the transformation from Opposition to Government. We have to judge this Bill against the other changes proposed by the Government. We cannot, for example, set aside the proposal, now before the House, for a change in the assessment of pensioners' upratings from earnings and prices to earnings only. The Labour Government based upratings on earnings and prices, and since 1973 that has made a difference of about £5 a week to pensioners—an extra sum that they would not have got if the uprating had been linked to prices only. That must be made clear.
The Labour manifesto at the general election also included the proposal to phase out the television licence for pensioners and to extend cheaper travel facilities to them where it does not exist already in various parts of the country. Those proposals would have been of genuine benefit to pensioners.
Another important point arises in clause 4. The explanatory and financial memorandum says that it is
providing for a further payment of £10, or a larger sum, if the Secretary of State considers a larger sum appropriate having regard to the economic situation, the standard of living and such other matters as he deems relevant.
He has already told us in vague terms today that we are not to know what the Government's future thinking on this matter is to be. These things are merely to be taken into account.
In a report from Tokyo in The Guardian today, John Palmer writes:
Mrs. Thatcher is considering removing the price of energy—including petrol and heating fuel—from the cost of living index as part of a move to get the British people to accept a period of lower living standards.
We shall want a clear answer to the question whether that is to be proposed by the Government, and how they will proceed to do it. Having already proposed to change the basis of assessment, if the Government start interfering with the cost

of living index a serious situation will arise.
In effect, it would mean that although prices had increased pensioners would be told that they would not get an increase in their pension because the cost of living index had been altered to exclude petrol and fuel prices. That is an exceedingly serious proposal, which would affect pensioners, families, the low-paid, the sick and the unemployed. It would be an extraordinary proposal, and we give solemn warning that in no circumstances would we accept a change in the basis of the cost of living index as such.
Against that background, the Government's proposal to pay £10 at Christmas is miserable, especially considering the rising cost of living and other factors. The pensioners will be well aware that the many benefits that they achieved under the previous Administration will not continue under the present Government. We shall watch very carefully the points that I have raised and explore them further in Committee today. While we shall not oppose this Bill, we shall seek to improve and defend the rights of pensioners between now and November and beyond.

12.1 p.m.

Mr. Tim Brinton: As this is the first time that I have tried to catch your eye since I was sent to this place, Mr. Speaker, may I thank you and all the Officers of the Palace of Westminster for the great courtesy and assistance shown to me in a few short weeks?
The people of the constituency of Gravesend have sent me here. In the tourist books Gravesend is best known as the burial place of Princess Pocahontas. It is a big parliamentary seat with 90,000 electors. It covers the banks of the River Thames and part of the Medway borough and stretches out to the Hoo peninsula. The constituency is known as a microcosm of the whole of the United Kingdom. We have heavy and light industry, farming, a refinery, and commuters—in fact, almost everything.
Gravesend used to be called a marginal seat. I hope that in my work here I can prove that that situation has changed. However, I have a great target ahead of me, because since the war the seat has been held for 21 years by a Labour Member and for 13 years by a


Conservative. My predecessors have made their mark in various ways. Sir Richard Acland was well-known for his individual and determined views, as was Sir Peter Kirk, who died so tragically recently. Albert Murray, who is now Lord Murray, and Roger White also represented the people of Gravesend. My immediate predecessor was Mr. John Ovenden, whose views I can in no way share but who was most assiduous in looking after the individual needs of his constituents. I thank him for the attention that he paid them and I know that I have a great task ahead.
We have a large group of pensioners in Gravesend. As I am only in my fiftieth year, perhaps I should explain my personal interest. It goes back 15 years, when I found myself, for the benefit of a television programme, living in a pensioner's room in a Brixton basement on the then basic old-age pension of £2. 17s. 6d a week. I learnt a great deal. I should have bought cracked eggs at more reasonable prices and I should have marketed more carefully. As a result of my lack of knowledge I lost a great deal of weight. I then faced Members of Parliament from all parties to ask them what could be done about this sort of pensioner.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) spoke of a large section of pensioners in this country—the very section of which I had experience those years ago—who had no other means or very little. However, there are others who receive old-age pensions, and if taxation on what has been called unearned income—now better known as savings income—could be altered we could have a great deal of money and perhaps help those really unfortunate pensioners who have nothing else. I sense that I may be digressing a little from the main point of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
The £10 bonus, when first introduced by a Conservative Government, seemed to me to be almost an admission that we were not doing enough for the pensioners with no other form of income. It was a sop to the sentimental view that I am afraid the media and others often take in discussing this emotive problem. We must look further than £10 bonuses and free television licences. I suppose

that the ultimate cure is some form of tax credits, so that those really in need can be properly looked after. From my personal experience I do not believe that this is happening now. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

12.7 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: I pay the usual homage to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) and hope that he will continue to make similar contributions to our debates. It has been my privilege to visit Parliaments all over the world. I have not yet been in a Parliament that equals the British Parliament. I say that with pride, and I have no desire to conceal it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gravesend that there are certain points in this Bill which could be looked at again with greater sympathy. Before dealing with them there is one point that I wish to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) referred to a report in The Guardian about the Prime Minister. If this report is correct I urge the rest of the members of the Cabinet to look at her proposal again. If it were to eventuate, all radical forces in this country would regard it as a form of deception. I shall not dwell on that now; I leave it to other members of the Cabinet to prevail upon the Prime Minister.
My one point in common with the hon. Member for Gravesend is that I, too, believe that there are discrepancies that put a marked emphasis on politics. In Burnley during the days leading up to the general election I did a tremendous amount of canvassing. I do a lot of canvassing between elections because it is my custom that when people cannot see me I go to see them. It pays handsome dividends. On one such occasion I came across a set of circumstances, involving television licence fees, which upset me greatly. My right hon. Friend said that it was our intention, had we been returned to office, to phase out television licences. These licences are a harsh imposition, particularly for one section of society, namely, those who are ill, disabled and living on the very minimum standard and who, for reasons of ill health, cannot go out unless the weather is genial.
I know several cases involving people who cannot go out at all, including one lady, intelligent and a true Christian, who has been housebound for 12 years. She cannot go over her doorstep. Her friends live nearby, in what is called a protected household. There is another name for it but the one that I have used will convey to the Minister precisely what I mean. Their television rental fee is 5p a year under the protection scheme. The lady who cannot go out pays £25 a year. That is inequality.

Mr. Orme: It is called "board and accommodation".

Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend whispers to me that it is called "board and accommodation". For that the lady's friends pay 5p television rental a year while she pays £25. One is worse off than the others and she asked me to explain why that should be so. I could not explain, except to say that if the Labour Party were to secure power it would phase out these fees. It is only too obvious that we did not secure power, so the anomaly still exists.
The Minister said that under clause 4 further benefits were possible. He will recall that I asked whether that statement was qualified. He gave me the honest reply, which I very much appreciate, that it was not qualified. Will the Minister look at this with more compassion than I received from Lord Belstead when I wrote to him at the Home Office? The noble Lord said that the cost of removing such inequalities would be between £100 million and £110 million. I agree that that is a substantial figure. I am not unaware of the need for economy in the future. We have nothing to throw away. I do not need any Minister to tell me that. Therefore, we approach this problem with great care. How can we resolve this anomaly with regard to the older members of society, some of whom, as I have said, are infirm to the point where they cannot go outside the door? Nothing disturbs me more than that.
If there is room for compassion within society, surely this is the avenue that we ought to be exploring. To ignore these people is something that I could never forgive, imperfect creature though I am. I therefore beg the Minister, if there is

any latitude under clause 4, to use it for the people about whom I have spoken.
I could suggest various ways to do this. In his letter Lord Belstead, quite properly, said that many old-age pensioners were reasonably well off and that to them the £25 would not in any way be an extraordinary burden. I would not ask any Government to give those people further assistance. The people of whom I am talking are living on the bread line.
I have a letter here from a lady. I do not intend to read it, though I know its contents to be true. I intend to see her over the weekend to find out whether the local office can help her. I would happily be prepared to pass the letter to the Minister, though from experience I know that Ministers are busy people, with hardly enough time to pay proper homage to their own families, never mind to constituency obligations. I notice that the Minister is smiling. He knows that what I am saying is true. I do not want to overstate my case, but I appeal to the Minister to examine the situation to which he himself referred and in respect of which he implied that he had a certain latitude.
At present, we are asked to consider costs at the BBC. This is only a related problem, though it is an important one. I believe that the BBC is to apply for a further increase in the television licence fee. Have the Government ever applied a truly efficient standard to the BBC? Is the Minister aware that there is a trade union—Equity—for which I have a certain respect, and which I helped to form in London more than 48 years ago, when I was unemployed in London? Of the 16,000 members of Equity, two-thirds are unemployed.
In the meantime we are importing absolute television rubbish from the United States. There is no doubt about it. The actors in those programmes cannot even speak the English language. They have no idea at all about vowels. They slur one into another. Consonants are part of an archaic language to them. One cannot understand them. Why is it that a responsible Government—I criticise the Labour Government as well—allow this to continue? Time after time we have heard the present Government and the previous Government placing emphasis


on the need to export, yet we are importing this stuff when two-thirds of the members of Equity are unemployed.
Do we have to indulge in such uneconomic ventures? Can we not in future apply a standard of efficiency, particularly to the bureaucracy, about which I know something, and do something about the employment of our own trained people? They could give the British public a far higher standard of television entertainment than we are presently getting. Will the Minister please look at that?
I ask the Minister to look first at the situation of the people to whom I have referred, who are at the lowest end of the economic scale in the country. If clause 4 can enable the Minister to take remedial action on their behalf I implore him to do that.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. John Carlisle: I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I wish to thank you also for calling me by my correct name. When I took the Oath you threatened that, because of the number of hon. Members who share my surname, you would call me "Mr. Newcastle-upon-Tyne."
I wish to say how much I have enjoyed the few weeks that I have been in the House, and I wish to thank everybody for their kindness and courtesy. To an outsider, this seems an awesome place. However, once one gets into the Chamber one is struck by the friendship shown by other hon. Members.
I have the honour to represent the newish constituency of Luton, West. Luton was well represented for many years by Lord Hill, a man who was well known to this House and who served the House and his constituency well. The constituency was later represented by Mr. Charles Simeons, but I took over from Mr. Brian Sedgemore, a robust man who had some interesting opinions on the economy. His absence will leave a gap which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find somewhat difficult to fill.
Brian Sedgemore and I share little in common in our opinions, bar the fact that we have a great love of rugby football. Indeed, to judge from the numbers

present for this debate, one regrets that there are probably not enough Members present to make up a team. Since rugby football is the peer of games, I must remind the House that Brian was a very good second-row forward, and as such he was the one who got the ball. He has now passed that ball to me. I am a fly half, I intend to accept the ball with pleasure, and I hope that I shall use it to the best of my ability to score many tries in this House and to kick many goals in the years to come.
I apologise to the House for not wearing a hat, since I represent a constituency that saw the origin of such apparel. The constituency contains a great deal of interest. We have one or two large factories, including Electrolux and SKF. We have a fine hospital, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services visited last year, the Luton and Dunstable hospital, which deals with many of the terrible accidents that happen on the motorway. We also have several large modern housing estates. Probably two of the most famous parts of my constituency are the football ground, where we are hoping for some improvement—not in the ground but in the standard of play next season—and Caesar's nightclub. I recommend the club to hon. Members as they travel back to their constituencies in the North as a most humorous club offering excellent hospitality.
Luton is probably not the most beautiful place in the world, but it contains genuine and hardworking people. Certainly nowhere will one find more friendly people. We have many varied cultures within the town, which bring their own problems, but I am proud to say that we have an active Conservative council, which, among other things, has reduced the rate burden in each of the past three years. It has made several internal economies. I fear a little for the economies that it may still have to make under the new regime, but I believe that it will play its full part in those economies.
We also have in the constituency many industrial workers who are enjoying their retirement, some of whom are drawing Service pensions. I pay tribute to some of our larger companies, such as Vauxhall, which have been most generous to their ex-employees and provided good


facilities, excellent clubs, outings, and so so, and a very good pension scheme.
We have a large number of pensioners in Luton—men and women—who, over the years, have built up the town's prosperity. They certainly deserve the attention that this House is now giving them. In the few minutes that I have at my disposal in this debate, I feel privileged to speak on behalf of those pensioners. They comprise a sector of the community which all politicians of all political persuasions have somewhat neglected over the years. When I meet them, I sometimes have a sense of shame over what has happened. Many pensioners are struggling to make ends meet. Many have fought one world war, if not two, and have made a great contribution to our nation's prosperity and pay their share of taxes.
The pensioner asks for little. He asks to be left alone, for peace and for a few small comforts so that he is able to look after himself. He also seeks care. It is a small price for us to pay to these proud people if we in this House can give them some help. They do not ask for charity, and some are reluctant to receive it. I feel humble when I am shopping with my wife and see the joints of meat that pensioners are forced to buy. I also feel humble when I go into a supermarket and find that there is little choice for the pensioner, because they need only a few luxuries. Many pensioners are lonely and depressed, and anything that we can do in this House to help them will be welcomed.
For that reason I sincerely applaud the Government's commitments set out in the Queen's Speech and in this debate. I applaud the fact that we intend to increase pensions by a greater percentage than Labour proposed to do if they had been returned to power. I applaud the fact that we have brought in this Christmas bonus and that we are intending to abolish the earnings rule. Pensioners should be encouraged to work if they want to do so and to take a fuller part in community life.
Many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, regret that the Christmas bonus is only £10, but we must remember that it is a bonus, and better than nothing. We all know that after the bonus

began in 1972 there were two years under the Labour Government when the bonus was not paid at all. It must be galling for some pensioners at Chirstmas time to see the nation thoroughly enjoying itself when they have not enough money to pay for the price of a meal. For many of them 1979 will be the last Christmas that they will enjoy, and for several thousands there are not many Christmases left. This bonus will give them some small comfort. Christmas is a time when people want to be with their families, and with the ever-increasing cost of transport the bonus will again assist pensioners.
I welcome the fact that the payment is to be permanent and that clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to raise the figure, if necessary. I remind the House that the bonus was first introduced by a Conservative Government. Despite the fact that the Labour Government withdrew the bonus for two years, Labour made no mention of that fact in its manifesto. One was sorry to see some of the sarcastic comments made by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), on this subject. A bonus of £10 is a small price to pay from this House for a happy Christmas. I salute the courage and determination of the present Government to continue to pay the bonus so that pensioners are able to have a full share in our nation's life.
I remember in the election campaign being in the centre of Luton when a little old man came up to my wife and squeezed her arm. He said "Do not worry my dear. If there are further economies to be made to help the nation back on its feet, I will make them" That aged gentleman could make few such economies, but he at least wanted to help the nation.
There was great relief among pensioners at the return of a Conservative Government. Pensioners will welcome the fact that early in the life of the present Government we have brought this legislation before the House. Let us hope that we can continue to move forward with assistance for pensioners, and possibly to shift the emphasis which I believe has been for far too long at the wrong end of the age scale.
There are Members here who will think it to their benefit as they approach the end of their parliamentary terms, but we


have a real responsibility to shift that emphasis on to the old, whose lives are almost past, rather than on to the young, who have their lives in front of them. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the courteous way in which you have received what I have had to say.

12.31 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: It is with great pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle), who made an excellent speech. His speech contained humour and also a great deal of serious content. When his constituents, especially the pensioners, read that speech they will feel that they have a worthy champion in the House of Commons looking after their interests.
Hon. Members will be delighted with the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about the friendship that he has found in his short time as a Member of Parliament. Many people outside the House cannot understand that although we argue seriously at times about fundamental issues there is a bond of friendship between us. We are all trying, in our respective ways, to do the best that we can for our constituents. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, in his time in the House, will do that.
We on the Opposition Benches were pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments about his predecessor, Brian Sedgemore. Although there was obviously a hard fight in that constituency, there was respect between the two contestants. I am sure that many hon. Members will look forward to the speeches that the hon. Gentleman will be making in the future.
I welcome the announcement of the payment of the £10 bonus. I congratulate the Minister on the commitment that the bonus is to be a permanent feature. In about August or September every year hon. Members start to receive letters asking whether the bonus will be paid. Although there may not be many occasions on which I congratulate the Government, I am pleased to congratulate them on this commitment, which will be warmly welcomed up and down the country. Of all the payments made by the Department of Health and Social Security, the £10 bonus is the most popular among pensioners. My constituency has a large percentage of elderly people. Many, now

retired, were working when conditions were much harder. They cannot understand why, after a lifetime of work for the benefit of this country, they have not received what they regard as just rewards for the efforts that they have made.
Although the standard of life for pensioners has improved in recent years, the announcement of the payment of the pension increase later this year will help a great many of them. Figures of a national average wage of £100 a week are often bandied about in the House. We in the Labour Party have long been committed to the retirement pension being related to a percentage of the average national wage. Even in November, when the pension becomes £37·30, there will still be a long way to go before pensioners in this country start to receive half the national average wage of £100 a week of working people. That is why the £10 bonus is so welcome.
I regret, however, that there is to be no increase in the amount. I recently asked the Minister what would be the amount of the bonus if one took into account the inflation that has taken place since it was first introduced in 1972. I was told that to take account of the inflation over that period the figure would have to be over £24. There will be great disbelief among pensioners that no increase has been made. I fear that unless there is a general upgrading a time will come when, whichever party is in Government, pensioners will expect the bonus to be increased.
At what level will that increase start? Are we talking of a jump from £10 to £15? I cannot believe that any Government would announce an increase from £ 10 to £20. It would have been better if the Minister had said that there is a limit to the amount of money available to his Department but that he concedes that the bonus, which has never been increased since it was introduced, should go up to £12 this year. That would have been accepted by pensioners. They would realise that there were problems and many claims on the resources of the Department but that a start had at least been made in bringing the bonus up to the level at which it should have been.
Many people may say that pensioners will simply go out and spend the £10.


In my experience, the vast majority save the money to meet other commitments. There are the problems of heating costs, which go up under whichever Government are in power. I am not attacking the Government. Nothing annoys pensioners more than to hear hon. Members talking about what one party did compared with another. They ask me what I am trying to do for them as their Member of Parliament.
Last winter there was week after week of cold, snowy weather, when many people kept on their heating. I was one of them. I feel the cold, and I am comparatively young. I have great sympathy for elderly people who were unable to get out of doors and had to keep on their heating. Another problem of the modern society in which we live is that the gas and electricity meters which showed people how much gas or electricity they were using have long since gone. Now, they turn the switch on, the meter goes round and round, and the next they know is that they get a bill and cannot believe that they have used the amount of gas or electricity that is shown. In many cases, however, they are called upon to pay those amounts. Many pensioners put away the £10 bonus to overcome heating charges during the most expensive quarter of the year.

Mr. Orme: I am listening with great interest to what my hon. Friend is saying. Setting aside the Christmas bonus, I am sure he will agree that there is no substitute for a decent pension to meet these basic costs. He says that he does not want this matter to become a political issue, but he must be aware that the proposed changes in the assessment will directly affect pensioners, not least his own constituents.

Mr. Cox: I agree with my right hon. Friend. When he is leading our party from that Dispatch Box in speaking on behalf of pensioners, he can rely on my wholehearted support. There can be no substitute, whatever we get, for a proper pension being paid to the pensioners of this country.
Pensioners have great pride. If one tells them that they should apply for a specific benefit they are reluctant to do so because many of them regard such benefits as charity. The only solution

is to pay them a decent pension. The average national wage is about £100 a week. The Labour Party commitment is that the pension should be between one-half and two-thirds of the average wage.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for the bonus of £10. Is there not an analogy with the death grant, which is the same as it was years ago? Is it not possible that the £10 bonus will remain the same for the next 20 years?

Mr. Cox: I was going to make that point. I met a group of pensioners on Tuesday. They were most anxious about heating costs and the death grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) talked about television licence fees. That issue was not brought to my attention on Tuesday, although it has been on other occasions.
These matters must remain under constant review. I congratulate the Government on their commitment to pay the bonus permanently, although I hope that it will not remain at £10 for long. People will be looking to the Government to introduce further benefits. An increase in the death grant is one improvement that should be made.
The tragedy is that after Parliament introduces a meaningful benefit it takes years to upgrade it. The last increase in the death grant was made in the late 1960s, and yet the cost of funerals, even without the elaborate flowers and hearse, is about £200.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) is always willing to listen. I am a member of the all-party group for pensioners. The hon. Lady has attended many of those meetings and heard the comments. For many pensioners there is nothing more degrading than the thought that they may not have sufficient money for a decent burial. Many pensioners put aside the Christmas bonus for that purpose. When asked why, they say "I am not going to be buried in a pauper's grave". Some people may laugh at that and believe that in 1979 people do not think like that, but some do. That is why we must improve not only this Christmas bonus but such benefits as the heating allowance and death grant.
The public are often amazed at the issues that we discuss in the House. I think of the Crown Agents. What a scandal that was. Millions of pounds were wasted. The pensioner who is struggling to pay an electricity bill and to put money by for his burial is amazed that we allow millions of pounds to be wasted in that way.
The number of pensioners increases each year. Throughout the country there will he farewell parties today for those who are retiring after years of working for one company. There will be speeches of appreciation, and gifts. Today those people finish working for their companies, and on Monday they begin their retirement.
The problems of retirement affect men more than women because women still have their homes to look after. But the man's daily routine of getting up and going to work suddenly stops. At one time there was plenty of part-time employment for men, but in my area, for example, part-time work is not available. Those men and women still have to buy new clothes, the men still want to go to the pub with their mates for a drink and to spend 20p or 30p a week on the football pools. Many learn very quickly that their income will not allow that expenditure.
This issue will command the attention of the House more often as more and more people retire and look for a continuation of the better standards of living that they have enjoyed recently. Whichever Government are in power, we are responsible for ensuring that retired people receive a pension that will allow them to continue to enjoy life as they are entitled to do after a lifetime of service to the country.

12.47 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I wish to raise only one matter. It is based on the report on the front page of The Guardian today. The Prime Minister is reported to have said, in Tokyo, that because of the escalating costs of oil and energy generally she proposes to strike out of the cost of living index the whole of the cost of energy. That will have important consequences for the old people.
This cooking of the books that is threatened by the Prime Minister, as reported in The Guardian, will destroy

all credibility in the cost of living index. The Government have said that they will renege on the previous Government's proposition to tie pensions to the cost of living or average earnings, whichever is the greater. The present Government say that the pension will be tied only to the cost of living, and now the Prime Minister says that she will cook the cost of living index.
All hon. Members know that, especially in the winter, complaints and anxieties are expressed by pensioners about the cost of their heating bills, whether they use coal, oil or electricity. If this damnable policy change is perpetrated by the Government they may as well cease publishing a cost of living index altogether, because nobody will believe that it is relevant to the real costs that old people in particular will have to bear in the coming months.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend was not in the House when I mentioned this issue. I said that if the report proved to be correct the Opposition would oppose it with every power at their command.

Mr. Hamilton: That goes without saying—I had already assumed that. I am sorry that I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) refer to it. The Minister must categorically deny the accuracy of that assertion when she replies. I quote from The Guardian:
Mrs. Thatcher is considering removing the price of energy—including petrol and heating fuel—from the cost of living index as part of a move to get the British people to accept a period of lower living standards.
If that is true, the Prime Minister is saying "We are going to cook the books and con the people that their standard of living is not going down". The British people were taken for a ride on 3 May. If we held a general election next week, the result would be vastly different. Already people are beginning to understand how they were conned a few weeks ago, and the Prime Minister's words are an indication of that. I hope that the Minister will say forthrightly that it will not happen, otherwise we may as well scrap the cost of living index altogether.
The Labour party accepts the proposition behind the Bill. The Government are giving a little charity to the old folks. I am not enthusiastic about that sort of


proposition. The basic solution to the old folks' problems is to give them a pension properly indexed to the cost of living or average earnings. That is the only way to protect them. However, we have to be thankful for small mercies.
The Secretary of State made great play with the fact that the cost will be £108 million this year. That is chickenfeed compared to the allowances made to those at the top end of the pecking order in the Budget. We are thankful for the Bill, and for any minutia of generosity that comes from the Conservative Government, especially if it helps the elderly and those on low incomes.
We do not intend to oppose the Bill, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West will make it clear that if the proposition of the Prime Minister, as reported in The Guardian, goes ahead, we shall oppose the Bill with every legitimate, or even illegitimate, means at our disposal.

12.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) and Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) on their maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West gave us a great deal to think about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recalled that he, too, was a second-row forward and would have been a very good match for the previous Member for Luton, West, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, and indeed was on many occasions. My hon. Friend's was a capable maiden speech and many of his ideas will be considered in greater detail.
It has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. It has dealt with a number of wider issues with which the House is frequently concerned. I assure the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) that I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to his comments. The Bill has no power to affect television licence fees or the types of programme shown on television. I share with the hon. Gentleman some grave doubts about programme content, but that is a matter for the Home Department. I am sure that he will understand that.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred to a number of wide-ranging issues affecting the elderly. We are agreed that it is the Government's duty to reduce waste. The Government are determined to give that priority. Only by conserving the money that we earn for the needy in our society shall we overcome some of the present problems.
I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) in Monday's Adjournment debate on the level of the death grant. I said that the matter was being studied and that we should make an announcement as soon as possible. We realise the great concern over the death grant. It is not a part of the Bill, but it is worth repeating for those hon. Members who may have missed a very early morning Adjournment debate.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when introducing Second Reading, went through the various clauses of the Bill. Therefore, I shall respond only to the matters raised upon it.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West referred to a previous speech of mine in 1977 in which I said that we might consider a 53-week year. That was in the context of overall simplification of all benefits. It was no firm proposal and has never been the policy of the Conservative Party, whether in government or in opposition. It was a suggestion made by many hon. Members, including some on the Opposition Benches, and was worth investigating.
A number of hon. Members referred to the bonus as though it was intended to be a maintenance payment to pensioners. That is not the intention. It is meant to be a little extra, a bonus as its name implies. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Tooting felt as pleased as the Government that, with the help of the Opposition, it will soon become a permanent feature on the statute book.
We all regret that the bonus cannot be more than the £10 laid down in the Bill. However, by taking power to review in the Bill we are indicating our awareness of the fact that the £10 bonus will be of value only so long as it maintains a true value.

Mr. Orme: Will the hon. Lady attempt to answer the question put both


by my hon. Friend for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and myself on today's report in The Guardian? It is strictly relevant to clause 4, which deals with the standard of living. We are concerned and would like a reply this morning.

Mrs. Chalker: I was coming to that. During the bonus debate of 1972 the previous Member for Blackburn, Mrs. Castle, said that the bonus must be judged against the wider background. That is what we have to do today.
I, too, read The Guardian report, but only after the debate had begun. Right hon. and hon. Members will be as aware as I am that not all reports in newspapers are proved accurate. Right hon. and hon. Members must await developments. I ask them to read a little further down the column than the passage that was quoted, where it states that the President of the Common Market Commission said that it was important that the cost of dearer oil was passed on in higher prices. It was he, not the Prime Minister, who said that.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the hon. Lady continue?

Mrs. Chalker: Yes, I will continue. The report uses the word "advises". No decision has been made. A responsible Government have to consider every eventuality. That does not mean that a decision has been made. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of his anxiety, and the anxiety of all hon. Members in the House, about the state of our economy.
However, I remind the House that the Conservative Government have been in office barely eight weeks. That which is happening in the British economy now is the result of five years when Britain spent money that it had not earned.
Until the country learns to live within its means—with everyone, especially earners who pay contributions, doing as much as possible to increase production—and thereby earn the resources necessary for the elderly and dependent persons, we shall not be in a position to use the increase provision in clause 4 to improve the Christmas bonus.
We stand by our election pledge, which we make again, that we shall protect the

pensioners from cost of living increases and, in upratings, do better than that, when the economy allows.

Mr. Orme: I note the vague reply given by the Minister to the points raised by my hon. Friend and myself. I give notice that obviously we shall pursue this matter with the Prime Minister when she returns from Tokyo.

Mrs. Chalker: Not being a member of the Cabinet—and as no decisions have been made—there is no way in which I can give a detailed answer to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).
Not everything that we read in the newspapers is found to be true.

Mr. Dan Jones: Thank heaven.

Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Member for Burnley says, thank heaven. I wish that less of it were true. Very often ours would be a happier society.
As in every previous period of Conservative Government, we intend to protect the pensioner from the increased cost of living. To some the bonus may seem only small, but this is now a continuing feature of life for pensioners. When the economy improves and we begin to overcome some of the problems inherited by the new Government we shall be able to use the clause 4 provisions. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. William Hamilton: Before the Minister sits down, will she express her opinion on the question whether she or her right hon. Friend would oppose in principle the idea of striking energy costs out of the cost of living index? That answer would be helpful to Parliament and the country.

Mrs. Chalker: I had sat down. I am as fervent as anybody in my wish to help those who need it. As the hon. Gentleman's question was hypothetical, I can give him no answer.
I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and give it a fair wind on its way, so that the pensioners may have their bonus from the time of the debate—earlier than ever before. It will allow the staff to prepare to pay the bonus. I commend the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]

Further proceedings stood postponed pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONERS' PAYMENTS AND SOCIAL SECURITY (MONEY)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision for lump sum payments to pensioners, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums payable under provisions of that Act providing for the Secretary of State to pay to a person, by reference to one week in any year and to benefit payable out of such money, sums not exceeding—

(a) £10 in respect of the person and a further £10 in respect of the person's spouse; or
(b) as respects any year after 1979, such sum larger than £10 in respect of the person and such further sum larger than £10 in respect of the person's spouse as the Secretary of State may specify by order;

(2) the payment out of such money of the administrative costs under that Act of any government department;
(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of so much of those costs as relates to sums paid under provisions of that Act providing for payments to persons out of the National Insurance Fund.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — PENSIONERS' PAYMENTS AND SOCIAL SECURITY BILL

Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order this day.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair.]

Clause 1

PAYMENTS FOR 1979

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The Opposition wish to hold a

short debate on clause I stand part. I realise that the amendment has not been selected. Nevertheless, there are some points that we wish to raise, some of which we knew about yesterday, and others which we have discovered today.
The Bill and the provision of the £10 bonus are, obviously, welcome. In one of my previous incarnations, when I sat below the Gangway as a supporter of the previous Government, I suggested that a previous Bill should contain a carry-on clause so that we should not have to waste the time of Parliament every year in legislating on a Bill containing 3,000 words just to pay a £10 Christmas bonus.
The basic issue is the £10 provided in clause I. That is a mean amount. This year its cost will be £108 million. I compare that with the £660 million in tax cuts in the Budget for the few thousand rich, those earning over £250 a week. Millions of pensioners will share the niggardly amount of £108 million, and we can therefore see the Government's priorities.
The value of the bonus will soon become meaningless at present levels of inflation. The Government forecast that the inflation rate will be 17½ per cent. by November. Those words may ring a bell somewhere. The £10 value may soon become meaningless as a result of the present inflation level. Similar words were used by the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) in 1977 when she described the £10 bonus paid by the Labour Government. At that time the inflation level was different. It was coming down. We now have an inflation level of just over 10 per cent., which is forecast to rise in the next few weeks to 17½ per cent. Therefore, we think that the position is different from what is was under the Labour Government. It is fair to make the point that £10 is not enough. The Government should pay more.
We do not seek to divide the Committee on the Bill. In some ways we should have preferred a general enabling pensioners' payments Bill, without an amount specified for this year, and an order for later this year and subsequent years. I suspect that pensioners' payment orders will not come in the middle of the year in future, but in November, as in the past.
The last sentence of clause I raises issues to which we should like answers from the Government. They say that the


£10 shall not be counted in respect of Income tax, and we accept that. The bonus has always been tax free. The Bill says that payments under this clause
shall be disregarded … for the purposes of any enactment or instrument under which regard is had to a person's means.
The Government clearly state that there is no intention to means-test the Christmas bonus, but that is not what the Tories said when they were in Opposition.
In November 1978 the spokesman for the Tory Party, when pressing my right hon. Friend, said:
It would be useful if the Minister could tell us what thought, if any, has been given by his Department to finding ways of concentrating payments on those really in need."—[Official Report. 13 November 1978; Vol. 958, c. 131.]
What does that mean if it is not an implication that the bonus should be means-tested? Mr. Robin Hodgson said that at his one appearance at the Dispatch Box. The Opposition are pleased to note that he is no longer a member of the House, but he spoke with the full authority of the Tory Opposition that night in making that point.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's own conduct in the matter bears careful scrutiny or is such that he should be particularly proud of it. My then hon. Friend, Mr. Robin Hodgson, put a question. There was never any question of his stating a policy. He put a question to the Minister. He was perfectly entitled to do that. I wrote to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) within a few days stating clearly that there was no intention on his part to lay down policy. The hon. Member has chosen consistently to ignore that statement. He and a number of his hon. Friends went round the country during the election frightening pensioners with the thought that this would be a means-tested benefit, when he knew perfectly well that he had had a categoric assurance from me that it was not. Will he belt up?

Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State is obviously a little too sensitive on this issue. The reason why we repeated what had been said by the then official Opposition was that we did not accept the denial. It is as plain as that.
The hon. Lady referred to the death grant at about 3 a.m. on Tuesday last. The clear implication of what she said was that the Government were planning to consider means-testing the meagre death grant. No one is saying that there is an intention in the Bill to means-test the Christmas bonus, but doubts have been raised.

Mr. William Hamilton: I hope that my hon. Friend will give the Minister a chance to repudiate them.

Mr. Rooker: I am a fairly liberal Member in this House—and I emphasise the small "l". I shall always seek, whether at the Dispatch Box or on the Back Benches, to be as courteous to other hon. Members as they have been to me. If anyone wishes to intervene I shall be only too happy to give way, but it appears that the hon. Lady is not seeking to intervene. One must therefore assume that my interpretation of her recent remarks is correct.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is very free with his interpretations. He well knows, as does every Member of this House—and, I should think, the entire country—that there is a major problem over the death grant and its present level for a group of pensioners.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is not high enough.

Mrs. Chalker: It is not high enough, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says, once again from a sedentary position. What I said on Monday night can be examined in detail when Hansard is printed again. We are all suffering without it at the moment. What I said on that occasion was that we must look at the whole problem of the death grant and see how we can best help those who need it. I have given no undertaking in this House of what we shall do. We are examining the problem. I am quite sure that the House would not wish to press the issue further, since it is distinctly out of order.

Mr. Rooker: I was the first person to mention the death grant, and we shall have to await the Government's review of its operation.
The other question that I want to raise on clause I concerns the £10 as part of


the package of the pensioner's income. The Government have told us that it is a bonus. At the meagre figure of £10 it cannot be anything other than a bonus, but we should like a categoric assurance today from the Government that, not withstanding the changes that they are to make to section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975 to cut the earnings of pensioners or to cut the pension in real terms, as compared with what the Labour Government were doing, in no way will any bonus payment be included in the Government's thinking about how it will operate when they come to deal with it each year.
1.15 p.m.
The Government are on record as saying that they will raise pensions only in line with prices. It is a well known fact—it has been repeated here today—that, taking the rises in pensions and the increase in cost of living and earnings since 1973, the married couple's pension would have been £5 less a week if we had stuck only to prices. That is £250 a year, not £10. That is the measure of what the Labour Government were doing, as compared with what the Conservative Government claim they are doing with their meagre £10 bonus. We should like, therefore, to have an assurance, within the terms of clause 1, that there will be a disregard of the £10 in relation to the general operation of pensions.
I want next to mention a matter which has already been raised once and may be raised again when we come to clause 4. I refer to the fact that pensioners are affected in different ways by the cost of living. The Government have chosen to put in clause 1 a sum of £10, exactly as has been done in previous years. They could easily have chosen to put in a different sum, and it would not have affected the operation of clause 4. Bearing in mind what we have seen in the press this morning, we should also like an assurance from the Government that, before any change whatever is made in how the retail price index is put together and operated, there will be full consultation with the advisory council concerned with the retail price index. There ought to be a full public debate on how the pensioner index is constructed. There is, of course, a pensioner index, quite separate

from the general household index. It is incumbent upon the Government to be a little more forthcoming today, rather than waiting for the Prime Minister to return from the Tokyo summit.
I want to ask the hon. Lady about how the sum of £10 is put together. I feel that it is legitimate for me to do so, bearing in mind what she said when in opposition with regard to the idea of a 53-week pension. She said then that it was only an idea. It may be something that the Government will look at. What she said was that the idea of a 53-week pension
has much to commend it, though it might mean that people had a little less each week during the year."—[Official Report, 17 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 929.]
That is what we are really worried about. If the bonus ceases to be a bonus and becomes involved in the generality of the total income of the pensioner, the clear implication is that the pensioner will not gain anything. We shall only be dividing a grand sum by 53 and saying "You are getting a big bonus". The implication of this was not lost on the hon. Lady in 1977, and it is not lost on anyone today. It would mean less each week for the pensioners than they would otherwise be entitled to receive. This is an important point that the Government ought to deal with today.

Mrs. Chalker: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's probing comments on clause 1, but I repeat quite clearly that the Government have no intention of means-testing the bonus. It is quite clearly listed in clause 1(5). Anything that may have been said by other spokesmen in the past—or misinterpreted very liberally by current Opposition Members—has gone. It is there in print in clause 1 and I draw the attention of the House to it. I say again that it is not to be means-tested.
When any Government are in power it is their duty—as I said in answer to a previous intervention—to look at every method of improving the payment to the elderly and the needy. It is also this Government's commitment to look at the simplification of our entire social security system. That is why I would be totally wrong—and so would my right hon. and hon. Friends—in failing to examine any possible way of making the method of payment to our pensioners and to our


disabled a good deal simpler than it is under the system that we have inherited.
I will tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not considering a 53-week year. That is also something of the past. Perhaps we can say that the bonus stays a bonus, that we can lay the 53-week argument to rest as from today, and that the £10 Christmas bonus and the provisions in clause 4 are not considered part of the annual uprating of other benefits but are a separate matter. As clause 4 says, the Secretary of State has regard to the economic situation and the standard of living in the United Kingdom. It is a separate matter, carried out separately.
In commending clause 1 to the House, there are two further matters that I wish to raise. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has time and again, both inside and outside the House, talked about the Government cutting the pension. We have no intention of cutting the levels of pension, as the uprating announced by my right hon. Friend on 13 June indicates. We have not only uprated the pension in line with prices; we have made good the shortfall in the pension which occurred under the Labour Government last November—a shortfall of 1·9 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is bound to look at the estimates for inflation. He is bound to look at the inheritance left to us by the previous Administration. That is why the increases are 19·4 per cent. up from this November.
As regards future changes, when we came to power, less than two months ago, the state of the economy was much worse than even the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), was honest enough to tell the House. When one considers that the then Government, the present Opposition, when uprating the pension in 1976–77, managed to leave out the months of high inflation of 29 per cent. in the summer of 1975 by changing the method of uprating pension, it is not their right to be mealy-mouthed about the present situation, when this Government will do their very best for pensioners. This Government have started not just by uprating the pension as already announced, but by trying to get the Christmas bonus made a permanent feature of our benefits system.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

PAYMENTS FOR 1980 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 32, leave out sub-section (3) and insert—
(3) The Order shall provide that sections 1 to 3 of this Act are to have effect in relation to the week specified in the order, as if for references to £10 in sections 1(1) and (2) there were substituted references to a larger sum increased by not less than the percentage increase in the pensioners' benefits covered by section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975.".

The First Deputy Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to take amendment No. 4 in page 6, line 34, leave out:
and such other matters as he considers relevant".

Mr. Rooker: What we are talking about here is the future operation of this legislation. The minimum requirement, as far as we are concerned, is that the £10 should at least be raised in line with the general percentage increase that will accrue to pensioners each year on their ordinary pensions, irrespective of how that percentage increase is arrived at. We cannot see why the Government should imply, as was done in the opening speech of the Secretary of State, that there is no commitment on their part to raise the figure of £10 next year, though the right hon. Gentleman has taken the power to do so if he thinks fit.
Over the years from 1972–73 the £10 bonus has become almost worthless. We all know that that is because of inflation. It may be asking a little too much to ask this Government to bring the £10 back to what it was in real terms in 1972–73. It is not something that the previous Government, in their wisdom, did either. However, it is incumbent on the Government to promise that they will, as a minimum, increase the £10 in line with future increases in pensions.
The real problem that we face now, if we are not careful, is that if the bonus remains at £10 there will come a time


when the cost of administering it becomes astronomical in proportion. I have taken the trouble to look at the Pensioners Payments and National Insurance Act 1973, when the total cost of paying the bonus was £80 million. It was £80 million because, of course, there were 2 million fewer beneficiaries. The administrative cost of paying the bonus was then only £1 million. The financial memorandum with the present Bill shows a figure of £108 million as the cost of the payments and an administrative cost of £3½ million.
As a percentage of the bonus payment, the cost of administering it—the fat, or waste to which the Minister referred—has risen from 1·2 per cent. to 3·2 per cent. The only reason for that is that in the meantime the wages of civil servants in the Department have risen, but the bonus has not. Wages and cost will continue to rise and it will be a ludicrous position if we reach a point at which it costs £10 million to distribute £108 million—because the number of pensioners will not increase very much. We believe that the Government should come clean on this and at least give an undertaking about the policy that they will operate.
We want to know from the Secretary of State—I do not think that he can brush it off—what the phrase
such other matters as he considers relevant
means. We can all look at the economic situation and the standard of living that is referred to in the first part of subsection (3). We can go to the Library and look at the statistics to measure what is happening in the economy. We can look at the standard of living, in terms of the cost of living, average earnings, and so on.
We would like to know what other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant. It is a very dangerous phrase. It does not give him as much power as in the "Skinner's Horse" clause about which he talked earlier. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If the Secretary of State chooses, for some reason that is obscure or unannounced, not to increase the bonus when the economic situation or the standard of living in the United Kingdom are crying out for an increase, how

are we to argue against such a decision when we do not know the basis on which it is made? People outside the House will not know the basis on which the decision is made.
I do not expect the Minister to give us a precise list. We will not hold him accountable if a factor is missed out. What we should like is some indication of the kind of factors that he will take into account, so that it is on the record for the future and my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself will be able to bring to the House copies of Hansard recording what has been said today in order to hold this Government accountable to the House of Commons.

Mrs. Chalker: I find the remarks of the hon. Gentleman very interesting. He is worried about the increasing rise of administrative costs, and I share that worry with him. I shall take any sensible steps to reduce the administrative costs, provided it does not harm the people whom we intend should get the benefit. However, from what the hon. Gentleman said I can conclude only one thing, which I am sure he did not mean—that he would have to look at the wages of the people who are responsible for paying the benefit.

Mr. Rooker: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: I am teasing the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rooker: The Government should increase the bonus.

Mrs. Chalker: I notice that the hon. Gentleman very carefully referred to the time when the bonus was £10 in 73 and only very quietly said afterwards that it remained at £10 in 1974 and in 1977 and 1978.
We, as well as everybody, particularly pensioners, outside the House whose savings were more than halved during the period of office of the last Labour Government, are well aware of the value of £10 now compared with £10 in 1974. We are all well aware of the way in which these benefits lose their value if they are not uprated. The power within this clause is for the Secretary of State to have regard to the economic situation in the United Kingdom, the standard of living in the United Kingdom, and such other matters as he considers relevant. I shall


shortly come to the specific clause that is the subject of amendment no. 4.
I know that the intention of the amendment was to make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to increase the amount of the bonus each year in line with the rate of increase in the qualifying benefit, whereas the provision in the Bill that it seeks to replace is permissive only.
First, I repeat what I said in our stand part debate on clause 1. This bonus is not a maintenance bonus. In the view of the Government it is not appropriate for it to be compulsorily operated, though we hope to do it whenever the economy allows.
1.30 p.m.
Clause 4(3), which the hon. Gentleman seeks to delete, gives adequate power for the amount of the bonus to be changed if it is considered appropriate. This Government can be trusted to use that discretion, which the subsection permits, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition's track record on increasing the bonus was non-existent. When pressed on previous occasions when in government, the hon. Gentleman's colleagues made very much the same points about the size of the bonus as we, by the economic situation, are forced to make today.
There is a further thing that I must tell the House about amendment No. 3. It is not quite correct. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for that, because I sympathise with him, having for five years tried to draft amendments to Bills. However, the amendment is technically defective in two ways. This brings me back to something that the hon. Gentleman said. The way in which the amendment is drafted would increase not the £10 but the larger sum. I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman means, but the amendment is not quite correct on that account. More importantly, it takes no account of the fact that not all the qualifying benefits would be increased by the same amount. The hon. Gentleman said that the bonus should be in line with the general percentage increase, irrespective of how it is arrived at.
When the bonus was introduced during the last Government, first by the previous Member for Blackburn, Mrs. Castle and then by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), one of the attractions of being able to pay it in a

year when the economy eased a little was that it was a simple, straightforward payment of a specific sum to everyone on a due date. If we were to incorporate the hon. Gentleman's amendment in the Bill in place of the existing subsection (3) it would be extremely complicated to operate.
In fact, it would be a much more major matter than the hon. Gentleman may have realised. It would make it possible that in some qualifying years some people on benefit would get nothing like the increase that others got. It would not always be slanted so that someone who had small funds and could perhaps make more use of the £10 bonus, or whatever it was then deemed to be, would have the same value from it. It could literally mean a few pence increase for some people, because of the qualifying benefit on which the Christmas bonus is based, and £100, or even more, for others on a different qualifying benefit which gave them entitlement to the Christmas bonus.
It is also probably considered reasonable that the bonus should be rounded up at least to 50p and not to £1, and this amendment would not make that possible without a further amendment. These complications would probably put the cap on the Christmas bonus once and for all. In view of what I have said on that, and what I shall now say about the specific phrase that is the subject of amendment No. 4, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to press the amendment.
In fact, we took from one of the previous Acts the words
and such other matters as he considers relevant",
for the simple reason that in 1975, when we debated the Child Benefit Act, it was considered the best way of expressing the matters that the Secretary of State might have to consider. The words appear in section 5(5) of that Act. They were not defined there, and we pressed the previous Government for a definition. They told us that it was to give them that amount of scope to vary if the need arose.
I have nothing more to add today, except to say that in discussing all the social security matters that come before this House I think one must leave it to the Secretary of State, his Ministers and


the officials in the Department to see all the arguments for the different competing priorities in the totality of social security expenditure. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have never learnt so much as I have done in the last seven or eight weeks about different priorities.
The factors that are more likely to affect any decision are the economic situation and the standard of living. I cannot give greater detail than that to the hon. Gentleman, because there was no greater detail on record when his party was in government, and there can be no more. We must look at the economic situation, the standard of living and the needs of the needy in our community as a whole.
It would hold up the progress of the Bill if the Opposition were to press this amendment. I am quite sure that we all want to see the Christmas bonus paid on time with as little difficulty and additional work—which would mean additional administrative costs—as possible. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Morrison].

1.39 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Yesterday, the OPEC Ministers took the decision to put up the price of oil. Today, in Tokyo, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the other leaders of the West will be discussing ways of dealing with the energy crisis and other pressures on the world economy.
One of the dangers facing the West is that the OPEC decision will give a new impetus to those who see protectionism as an answer to our problems. It is against this background that we are today discussing the outcome of the Tokyo round of the multilateral trade negotiations, one of the main barriers to protectionism.
As the House will know, this latest round of multilateral trade negotiations, as they affect the United Kingdom, was launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), now Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in 1973 when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The negotiations took a very long time to get started seriously, and even after the necessary United States legislation had been passed at the beginning of 1975, serious negotiations had to await the outcome of the United States presidential elections and the appointment by the new President—President Carter—of Ambassador Robert Strauss as his special trade negotiator. Unlike some international negotiations which have been in the doldrums and have subsequently foundered, however, these have been brought to a successful and worthwhile conclusion.
The Commission, negotiating on behalf of the countries of the EEC and the other negotiators—largely from developed countries—initialled agreements on most of the subjects that had been under discussion in the multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva on 12 April of this year.
Many developing countries are currently considering whether to accede to some or all of the agreements. The


Government earnestly hope that they will feel able to do so. That was the course I urged on them at UNCTAD and during my subsequent trip to the ASEAN area. I understand their feelings that they were to some extent "bounced" in the later stages of the negotiations. It is true that the need to get the agreements ready for the United States Congress to consider them this summer did not permit the more thorough negotiation that would have been desirable.
I explained to the Ministers of a number of countries whom I met in Manila that the multilateral trade negotiations were not a charter for protectionism, as some of them saw them, but were, rather, a vital weapon in the armoury of the Governments of the Western countries that should enable them to resist protectionism. I found that many Ministers representing rather less democratic countries than ours find it hard to understand that the impetus for protectionism in a country such as ours does not come from the Government. It is a pressure which comes from the people and which Government are resisting.
The agreements are important, but how they are put into practice and how they will work is just as important. In evolving the necessary codes of practice and the new techniques that will be necessary if we are to implement the multilateral trade negotiations, the developing countries can play, in our view, a most important part.
I shall not attempt now to expound the detailed provisions of the agreements. Anyone who has examined those texts, which have been made available to the House, will see that they are very complicated. The texts are being finalised. Once they are in their final form, the Government will have them printed and laid before Parliament in the usual way. My Department has prepared for this debate a background paper which tries to set out the points which we consider are of real economic and political importance. I hope that those interested will have been able to have had a look at them.
Looking round at the rather less than crowded House, I was tempted to come to the conclusion that many Members, having looked at the paper, had decided that it was not a subject for them and had been frightened away. That was not the

Government's intention in putting that paper in the Vote Office.
Before I turn to the general intent of the agreements, I shall say something about their importance in rather more general terms. The Tokyo round negotiations were launched before the oil crisis—and by that I mean not the 1979 oil crisis but the 1973–74 oil crisis—so many of the objectives that Ministers set themselves in Tokyo proved incapable of complete fulfilment in the light of the recession that followed the oil price increase in the middle of the 1970s.
That recession and the rise in unemployment in the developed world naturally led to considerable protectionist pressures in many developed countries—mainly from industries that found themselves in difficulties. It has been the general consensus amongst the leaders of the Western world, at their successive economic summits since 1975, that it would be disastrous to give way to such pressures, and that the route of protectionism is not one that it would be wise for the Western world to follow. That does not alter the fact that there can scarcely ever have been a time when it seemed less appropriate to be discussing the liberalisation of trade than during what has proved to be a prolonged and very stubborn recession.
It is against that background that I pay tribute—I hope that it will not embarrass him too much—to the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) and to his predecessor, Mr. Edmund Dell. This was their attitude, in direct contrast to the policy advocated by some of their hon. Friends, who argued strongly in favour of a protective wall of import controls behind which British industry was supposed to revive itself through increased demand.
Apart from the fact that adopting generalised controls is a policy closed to us by our international obligations and our membership of the EEC, and would almost certainly provoke retaliation, I do not believe that the removal of the stimulus of overseas competition would assist in improving domestic industrial efficiency. The fact that the consumer has a choice and is prepared to use it if British companies do not provide what he wants when he wants it at a price that he is prepared to pay, is the best spur that British industry has to increase its competitiveness and productivity.
The fact that multilateral trade negotiations were going on and creating a real prospect of a further step towards the liberalisation of world trade and better and more up-to-date rules for it, and for the settlement of disputes about it, has been an important element in enabling Governments to resist the pressure for piecemeal protection.
If the negotiations had failed—and at times an outcome as successful as the one that has been achieved seemed very far from a foregone conclusion—there were real grounds for fears that the alternative would have been steadily increasing protectionist actions by Governments. That the negotiations succeeded was due very largely to the contribution from the United States side and, in particular, from Ambassador Strauss. Many people regard his appointment by President Carter as the special trade negotiator as probably the main turning point of the negotiations.
I also pay a compliment to those who have negotiated on behalf of the EEC and those unsung heroes, the officials of the Department of Trade, who played a very substantial part in keeping the negotiations moving.
I now touch on the most important elements of the package agreed. Industrial tariffs are to be cut by somewhat under a third over a period of eight years. That average naturally conceals considerably different tariff bargains between the main negotiating partners. The most far-reaching is probably the bargain between the EEC and the United States, with clearly balanced cuts of about 30 per cent. on each side, where the cutting process was pursued as far as the negotiators judged practically possible. The outcome of the negotiation with Japan, with cuts on applied tariffs of 25 per cent. on their part and 20 per cent. on the Community's part, was a little disappointing.
The industrial tariff cuts offered by Australia and New Zealand to the Community are relatively modest, but they reflect the fact that the reciprocal concessions by the Community had to be found, and that they were found with some difficulty in the agriculture sector. I shall return to that aspect of the negotiations later.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier the fact that his Department had produced a background paper on this subject. He claimed that it had been laid in the Vote Office. That background paper is not available in the Vote Office or the Library. The negotiations are complicated and important and we are here because we are interested in them. The papers will be a useful guide. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find out what has happened to them.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. I approved the paper over the weekend, thought it was an excellent idea, and gave instructions for it to be placed in the Vote Office. I am sorry that that has not happened and that I am the only hon. Member present who has seen a copy, but the hon. Gentleman will see that action is being taken at this moment.
We do not believe that the extent of the current cuts that have emerged from this round of the GATT negotiations will damage United Kingdom industry. Certain industrial sectors were unhappy at the extent of the tariff concessions that the Commission made to the United States. In the context of the tariff package as a whole, and with the various safeguards for the textile and paper industries decided upon by the EEC Council of Ministers on 3 April, the Government believe that it is one that the EEC Council of Ministers should in due course formally accept and implement.
It would not be wise to judge this round of renegotiations purely on the basis of the size of the tariff cuts. The Tokyo round of cuts is worth while, but the negotiations were not principally about the cutting of tariffs; they were about the removal, as far as possible, of the proliferation of non-tariff barriers to trade that have evolved in recent years. The main aim of the Tokyo negotiations was nothing less than to clean up the rules of the world trading system.
The agreements on non-tariff barriers in the MTN package are not castles in the air but real attempts to overcome the practical difficulties that face exporters and hence promote trade. If exports are to develop and international trade to thrive, exporters need to be able to predict the total charges to which their goods


will be liable before reaching the customers. They want to know not just the rate of duty that will normally be charged but such things as the basis on which the duty is calculated—that is, the basis of customs valuation—whether antidumping or countervailing duties are likely to be imposed, what technical regulations or standards have to be met and what conditions exist for bidding for foreign Government contracts. The agreements tackle these four major problems.
The non-tariff agreements provide a better framework for international trade and greater transparency and openness. We have not been able to get all that we wanted. In negotiations of that kind it would be ideal to impose obligations on others and leave ourselves free of any, but I believe that experience of the working of these agreements will in time show that we have struck a fairly well-balanced bargain.
Disparate methods of customs valuation in different countries have in some instances led to arbitrary and aggressive valuation to raise revenue or protect domestic industry. The danger of the extended use of such valuation practices in order to compensate for the lowering of ad valorem custom duties in the current round added impetus to the search for a system of valuation that would meet with universal acceptance. It was not possible in the negotiations to win everyone round to the system currently used by the Community—the Brussels definition of value. A new system has evolved based in the main on the price paid or payable.
The code has what is described as a hierarchy of secondary methods for use only if in well-defined circumstances it has not proved possible to use the primary method. The 1968 anti-dumping code has been updated without major changes to bring it into line with the subsidies and countervailing duties agreement. In the Community anti-dumping investigations are carried out by the Commission, but my Department maintains a unit to help United Kingdom industry with cases and with its search for amendments to the code. The present arrangements cannot significantly be improved, although my right hon. Friend and I are going to Brussels on 10 July and will be examining the way in which, in practice, the anti-dumping arrangements within the

EEC work and seeking improvements. In the main they are working reasonably well.
In the subsidies and countervailing code, the United States has accepted important GATT obligations that were previously excluded by United States legislation which predated the GATT. In return, there has been a tightening up of the GATT rules on subsidies that affect other countries as well as the United States. There is no fundamental change in existing GATT provisions, but the code spells them out and provides new dispute-settlement machinery. Existing export assistance schemes, such as the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the British Overseas Trade Board, should not be affected.
The United States practice on countervailing duties is of such importance to the exports of some individual sectors that I must say more about that. Schemes of assistance to industry similar to our own, including regional assistance, are operated widely in the developed world, including the United States. Our schemes are not intended to have a direct effect on international trade or to give special advantages to our industry through subsidy; they are intended to compensate for geographical and historical disadvantages.
Our industrial support policies are in the process of being reviewed and are likely to be reduced in scope and scale. Whatever decisions the Government may take about industrial support, United States competitors may regard them as contributing to unfair competition. If United States industries think that imports into their market are causing material injury they may well apply for countervailing duties to be imposed. The precise impact of the United States legislation to implement the MTN agreement will not be clear for some time. We attach a great deal of importance to uniform application of the code by all the main parties of the negotiations.
Exporters who are worried about countervailing duties—particularly those hoping to expand their sales in the United States markets—should keep closely in touch with my Department, which will be monitoring the legislation as it goes through Congress and the Senate and as


it finally arrives on the United States statute book.
United Kingdom exporters constantly complain, often with every justification, that foreign technical regulations and standards are used as barriers to trade to protect domestic industry. The new agreement concentrates on the principle of transparency—the publication of proposed new measures so that information is more readily available. Exporters should be more able to identify what barriers there are, and the practice of developing standards systems so that they are a barrier to trade will be outlawed.
The Government procurement code brings in a limited measure of liberalisation for Government purchasing. It thus creates new opportunities for exporters, but it will make some formerly "safe" markets for manufacturers more open to competition, although much of the purchasing concerned has already been liberalised within the EEC. There are important exclusions such as local authorities, most nationalised industries and what are described as warlike stores. The important element is again transparency—more open procedures to prevent "fixing" or covert discrimination.
Another important agreement is on trade in the civil aircraft sector. The key provision is for duty-free trade amongst the signatories in aircraft and parts. Since the EEC has not in practice been able to impose tariffs on civil aviation and civil aircraft since its inception, the advantages to our exporters of negotiating away the United States and Japanese tariffs are obvious. The agreement also contains some generally worded agreements on procurement, offset, and so on, to set a framework for international trade in civil aircraft.
Negotiations are continuing in the framework of the MTNs for an agreement on counterfeit merchandise to tackle the circulation in international trade of goods with forged trade marks. It is important to increase the rate of detection of them whilst not creating new barriers to trade, and to create financial disincentives to those engaged in these criminal practices, which are causing genuine concern and damage to many British firms.
No text has yet been published, but the Government welcome the fact that

the main negotiating parties have agreed on the principles of an agreement.
The major aspect of the MTNs which remains unsettled is the negotiations on safeguards. These negotiations largely ceased during the meetings of UNCTAD in Manila but are now restarting in the GATT, so far informally.
The Government are strongly committed to a successful outcome of the negotiations for a revised safeguard clause in the GATT. We said so in our manifesto, and we shall continue to seek a successful conclusion to the negotiations. Our objective is to ensure that when safeguard action is necessary it does not have to be taken against all sources of the goods in question but only those causing difficulties. The shorthand phrase for this concept—there is a great deal of shorthand in this slightly jargon-ridden area—is "selectivity". It seems to the Government that this will cause less and not more disruption to trade, and it is certainly not intended, as some developing countries fear, as a preliminary to the wide and indiscriminate use of safeguard action against their exports.
Selectivity is not the only issue in the negotiations. The United States Government wishes to secure agreement on improved procedures and discipline in the use of the safeguard clause. We are prepared to co-operate in the negotiations for that purpose. Although the earlier stages of the negotiations were marked by a serious resistance to the concept of selectivity, the vast majority of developed countries have recognised the validity of the concept, and the developing countries have been willing to talk about the conditions in which it could be used. The main discussions are about the criteria of selectivity.
The Government are not opposed in principle to tighter criteria—criteria which will have to be met before selective safeguard action can be taken—always provided that, at the end of the day there is a usable selective safeguard. We would not wish to see the negotiations produce something which has a theoretical value but which is so hedged around that it simply cannot be used in practice.
The main areas under discussion on the use of selective safeguard action generally are the criteria which have to


be evolved before we can decide just when such action can be taken. Issues which have to be settled include such things as whether a safeguard action should have a specific limited life, the base period which should be used in determining any quota, and whether there should be automatic increases in quota levels during the life of the quota. Additionally, it is proposed to establish a GATT safeguards committee which will have the responsibility of monitoring and reviewing safeguard measures. The extent of the role of that body is still under discussion.
Our approach to all these negotiations is, as the House would expect, a pragmatic one. The outcome that we seek is improved discipline in and surveillance of safeguard action but without rendering it impractical, in a way that, in our opinion some suggestions would do. We have to be able to tackle sudden and massive surges of imports effectively.
This does not mean that the Government are contemplating the daily use of safeguard action. On the contrary, we are committed to the open trading system, and our view is that safeguard action, selective or non-selective, should be taken only when fully justified. But within this framework we feel that selectivity will help to maintain the open trading system by directing safeguard action, when it really is necessary, against the specific problem rather than against all imports of the goods in question, including the traditional and the non-disruptive.
This subject came up over and over again during the UNCTAD conference in Manila. During my visit to the ASEAN countries, I was able to talk to a considerable number of representatives of different countries at the conference. I found that the concern which all of them had was that the selective safeguard would be an overused instrument which would simply be a way for countries which were facing imports that they did not like to stop them. I stressed, as I have tried to stress today, that that was not the way in which we saw the selective safeguard. But I did stress that without it it would be very difficult for the Governments of the developed countries to sell a liberalised trade package to their people, and I underline that again.

Mr. Cryer: Was the question of selectivity in any way linked to the social conditions that prevail in some of the countries that produce the exports that affect our position in this country? Did the negotiations involve discussions of a social clause, so that selectivity could be used against a country where there was clear exploitation of workers to the disadvantage of workers in this country?

Mr. Parkinson: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the negotiations are not concluded; they are in the process of being renewed. They have started informally at the GATT, and the impetus to negotiation will be building up over the next few days. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman has not been raised previously with me, and I am sure that it has been noted by those listening to the debate. I certainly take it on board, but I feel that sometimes we get carried a little overboard in our attempts to impose what we consider to be proper working conditions in other countries.
I remember a good example of that. It was when I visited Umtata, in the Transkei. The new Government there told me proudly that they had signed the United Nations declaration on minimum prison standards. The problem was that the United Nations declaration foresaw a standard of living inside gaol of about twice the standard of living of the average citizen of the Transkei, and the Transkei Government therefore found themselves in the difficult position of having to throw people out of gaol and to stop people from trying to break in. That is just a measure of what happens when one tries to impose on countries which are not ready for them standards which might be entirely appropriate in developed Western countries.

Mr. Ronald Bell: When did my hon. Friend pay that visit to Umtata?

Mr. Parkinson: About two years ago. I know what my hon. and learned Friend is thinking, but I prefer not to comment.
I turn to the question of agriculture. It may surprise the House to hear that we find the result of the MTNs in this sector particularly welcome. When we took office, the Community had already


negotiated deals with an important agricultural context with the United States, Canada and New Zealand, and the Australian deal, agreed a fortnight ago, was already on the stocks. That deal contains a major agricultural element.
The main effect of these agreements is of substantial benefit to the United Kingdom. Under the deal negotiated with the United States, the wine gallon assessment method for taxing imported spirits will be abolished for imports from the Community and the quotas for cheese will be substantially increased. In return, the Community has made concessions over high quality cuts of beef, known as Hilton beef, turkey portions, rice, tobacco and a number of other products. Abolition of wine gallon assessment will mean that after the end of this year United Kingdom whisky and gin distillers will no longer be faced with penal rates of duty on whisky and gin exported in the bottle rather than in bulk. This concession is very welcome and will be especially appreciated in Scotland, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North will agree.
The EEC deals with Canada, Australia and New Zealand involve some loosening of the rigid framework that has almost cut out some types of international trade, with the provision of modest but useful quotas in each direction. The important thing about the deals with Australia and New Zealand in particular is not so much the effect that they will have on supplies within the Community—as everyone knows, the Community problem with dairy products is one of over supply rather than shortage—as their effects in securing and expanding trading links between the Community and Australia and New Zealand at a time when there was a real danger that these links would become more and more tenuous. I am glad that our EEC partners were able to recognise the importance to Australia and New Zealand of their agricultural exports, and the need therefore for the Community to find some ways of enabling these exports to be increased.
I remember hearing the excellent speech of the Australian trade negotiator, Mr. Garland, in London towards the end of last year, when he pointed out very effectively that if the EEC continued to adopt such a rigid attitude to imports of

agricultural products from Australia, the end result might be that Australia would be forced to sever trading links with us and be driven into a regional trading block, which her Government did not want. I am glad that in the later stages of the negotiations it was proved possible to avoid that danger.
I shall say a few words about the various steps necessary to implement the results of the MTN package. This deals very largely with matters that are subject to Community legislation. Therefore, most of the implementation will be by decisions and regulations made by the EEC Council of Ministers. Subject to satisfactory progress in implementation by others, including the United States Congress, the Commission will make the necessary proposals to the Council for it formally to enter the MTN agreements with the participation of the member States also where necessary, and for the necessary alterations to existing internal arrangements, which will not be widespread. These proposals will be deposited with Parliament and will be available for scrutiny in the normal way. Some of the agreements may need to be designated as "Community treaties" under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. In that case the Government will introduce the necessary draft orders in the autumn.
The successful outcome of the negotiations can be regarded as particularly important for the United Kingdom in practical terms. We must never forget the degree of our dependence on international trade. In 1978 our exports amounted to almost one-third of our gross domestic product, compared with only 20 per cent. 15 years ago. In that same period exports of manufactured goods have remained a stable proportion—about 80 per cent.—of total exports. Since our imports also amount to about one-third of our GDP, with an increasing proportion—now nearly two-thirds—being manufactures, we must make vigorous use of increased trading opportunities such as those provided by the newly renegotiated MTNs.
To sum up, in trade terms the package will bring advantages to the United Kingdom. There seem to be adequate safeguards for those sectors of our industry that are worried about certain tariff cuts. The package will strengthen the role of


the GATT as the institution for the negotiation of new commitments for the promotion and liberalisation of world trade. To enhance its authority as the place for the orderly settlement of disputes about international trade, the Government's conclusion on the MTN package—in this we agree with our predecessors who accepted it at the April meeting of the Council of Ministers—is that it should be endorsed.
I believe that it is very important now, when there is concern about a possible recession, that developed and developing countries do not draw back from reaching final agreement. In times of crisis it is more important than ever that in the world trading system we should operate within a framework of agreed rules and that people trade within those rules. I heartily commend to the House the newly renegotiated package.

2.17 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: The whole House is grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive report on the outcome of the multilateral trade negotiations. For a country like the United Kingdom, which exports one-third of its gross domestic product and imports about one-third, the rules of international trade are of special importance. It is often forgotten in this country that we export twice as much per head of population as Japan. That is not the popular impression in this country, mainly because the Japanese concentrate so much on certain sectoral areas of activity. These rules of international trade are tremendously important to us as one of the world's most important trading nations.
In approaching any assessment of the result of these negotiations, we must bear in mind the balance between our export interests and the natural concern of some of our domestic industries over the flow of imports. Particularly on tariff negotiations, one must evaluate the potential value of a cut in tariffs—for example, a cut made by the United States—as against the penalty that we have to pay by cutting our own tariffs. This is a matter of considerable debate and dispute in the textile industry, depending to some extent on whether one is concerned with the man-made fibre area or with woollens. On the whole, the tariff cuts are reasonably balanced, with one exception.
A great deal of disappointment has been expressed at the offer put forward by the Japanese Government. Unfortunately, that disappointment must remain. While Japan has such a substantial trade imbalance with the EEC, this country and many others, it is incumbent upon the Japanese to take steps to try to reduce the imbalance. One of these steps would be to liberalise their trade much more. They have made offers, but it is widely agreed that they are not yet wide enough. It is very difficult for our exporters, despite the excellent work of the Department of Trade with its specialised unit on Japan, to break into what is in many ways a closed market. This market is sometimes defended by custom and national attitude as much as by a particular tariff or non-tariff barrier. I think that we should agree that Japan has not made a significant enough contribution, as yet, to the liberalisation of world trade.
I pay tribute to the negotiators in the Department of Trade during the whole period of these multinational trade negotiations. The Minister said that they were unsung, and I think that that is true. These negotiations have not been in the forefront of public view. None the less, they have been extremely complex and demanding, involving negotiations within the European Community and negotiations outward from the Community, which in turn has involved all kinds of complex international negotiations, together with the close contact with many of the industries most affected by them. I have unstinted admiration for the work which was done and which I observed at close quarters during my period in the Department. The country owes a debt of gratitude to the skill and determination exhibited by the negotiators.
I mention also my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and Mr. Edmund Dell, both of whom played a very important part in bringing these negotiations forward and supervising them through the long period of gestation since the round was first announced. The Minister, very helpfully, put the various negotiations into different categories and I shall roughly follow the categories that he identified.
I think that the judgment must always, in relation to tariffs, be conditioned to


some extent by the industrial interests involved. Major concern was expressed during the negotiations by the textile and paper industries in this country. We were able at the Council of Ministers meeting on 3 April to make significant progress with regard to the paper industry. The proposals initially put forward were substantially reduced and rephased, as a result largely of a spirited effort by the United Kingdom and French Governments. The French Government shared our concern over the paper industry, and I think that that important amendment was widely appreciated throughout the paper-making industry in Britain.
It is extremely important, on textiles, that we bear in mind the importance of the multi-fibre arrangement. During these negotiations it was insisted by the United Kingdom Government that progress towards the tariff-cutting exercise, under the multilateral trade negotiations for textiles, be conditional upon the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement. That arrangement is the most comprehensive set of agreements regulating the import of textiles into this country that has ever existed. It was substantially renegotiated and widened during the period of the previous Government, and I hope that the success that we achieved will not be put at risk by the present Administration. I confess that I was deeply disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, when answering questions during the last Question Time on trade, seemed to display a reluctance to commit the Government to a continuance of the multi-fibre arrangement.
We shall be pressing the Government constantly on this matter. We reached agreement within the Council of Ministers on the importance of renewing the multi-fibre arrangement, and it will be little short of folly if that achievement is thrown away needlessly by the present Government. I believe that the Government will come to realise, during the course of the negotiations with the industry, that all sides of the textile industry place great importance on renewal. If there is to be a secure future for the industry there must be a renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement on something like its present scale. The Government must also take into account the importance of connecting that with the textile tariff reductions

of the multilateral trade negotiations.

Mr. Parkinson: The right hon. Gentleman has just given an example of the difficulties. He said that there must be an agreement on a similar scale, though he recognises that there will probably be changes two-and-a-half years from now in the agreement as it now exists. I am sure that he would like to confirm that.

Mr. Smith: What I did not have confirmed, despite persistent and precise questions, during the last trade Question Time in the House was an agreement in principle by the Government that the multi-fibre arrangement would be renewed. I am not expecting the Government to spell out now what would be the precise quotas or amounts that would be determined. They must be negotiated. But there must be an important commitment in principle by the Government. That has been lacking so far. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this matter will be raised again and again not only from the Labour Front Bench but by many of my hon. Friends who have very important textile interests to protect and defend.
So far as non-tariff barriers are concerned, I welcomed what the Minister of State said about the subsidies code. There was a real danger in this code for the United Kingdom. That danger was that an attempt might be made to penalise United Kingdom exporters who benefited from our regional policy and our policy of assistance to industry. As the hon. Gentleman rightly recognised, the purpose of our policy in helping the regional development of industry, and of selective assistance to industry, was not to confer benefit upon British exporters but to assist in the regeneration of British industry and make sure that it was better distributed throughout the country.
Of course, there have been complaints about it from some United States interests alleging hidden export subsidies. They sometimes forget the very important assistance given to their exporters by the military and industrial complex of the United States and the use of defence contracts. That is something that we must also bear in mind. I am glad that the insistence which the previous Government placed upon the wording of the code being such as to permit the


development of the regional policy of assistance to industry to continue has been maintained. That appears in the code which will be signed as part of these negotiations.
However, I deplore the fact that the necessary protection which we sought for regional policy and for assistance to industry is less likely to be used as a result of the decision, which this Government have already arrived at, of running down regional development to industry and running down selective assistance to industry. Having fought so hard to protect the right of a Government to do that, it is rather galling to find that the present Government are not prepared to use some of these techniques. I think that the Government will come to realise the folly of that policy as the months roll by and I hope that there will be a change of attitude to the use of money and techniques for the development of our industrial structure.
Some very important achievements have come from these negotiations, which are shown up in the codes. The hon. Gentleman mentioned abolition of the wine gallon assessment by the United States. This is an important change which has long been sought by the whisky industry, and some other industries, in this country. It has always been the position that one had to pay a tariff on the water in a bottle of whisky as well as on the whisky. Fortunately that perk, which applied to the United States, has now been abolished. Speaking personally and not only for the United Kingdom but for one part of it, I regard that as a very important achievement.
The United States has now brought some other important changes more fully into the GATT framework. Some of the advantages that it enjoyed under the "grandfather clause" are now being removed. As a result the United States will enter more fully into the GATT structure. These are developments to be welcomed, as is the abolition of the American selling price. That was another device used to increase the tariffs on goods entering the United States. These are positive and important achievements for the United Kingdom.
Similarly, the code on civil aircraft will be of value to the United Kingdom. We have a very important aviation industry

in this country, which is already a substantial exporter. Its importance can hardly be overestimated. It faces fierce international competition, but I believe that our aviation industry is largely competitive and can secure an increasing share of world orders. In the civil aircraft code, the steps taken with regard to our domestic industry seem to me to be ones that will be of advantage.
Agriculture tended, in the negotiations, to be more an issue between the other countries of the European Community which are more committed to the common agricultural policy and the United States than it was of direct interest to the United Kingdom. It was somewhat disappointing that the Community wanted to preserve all the principles of the common agricultural policy intact as one of the objectives of the negotiations. But from time to time the United Kingdom Government interceded on behalf of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand to make sure that a fair deal was extended towards their interests.
I had discussions from time to time with Mr. Garland and other representatives, and I believe that the United Kingdom acted as an honest broker on behalf of Australian and New Zealand interests. For wider political and trading reasons we were anxious to maintain good relations with Australia and New Zealand. The CAP was such an ark of the covenant within the EEC that it was difficult to dislodge those concerned from adherence to every principle involved.
Overall, I believe that the agreement has been satisfactory. Much of it will require to be monitored in detail. The Government procurement code will have to be watched very carefully. Many countries are happy to sign international agreements involving high-sounding principles, but when it comes to practising them they are not so forthcoming.
There has been a great deal of disappointment in this country about the code of purchases within the EEC, in which the United Kingdom undertakes all the obligations about advertising contracts within the EEC but in which there is a certain laggardness on the part of other Community countries. I hope that the Government will pay close attention


to monitoring the Government procurement code to see that it is carried out in practice as well as merely by adherence to the principles involved in the negotiations.
Although important steps have been taken to complete the Tokyo round, there are still a few hurdles to be overcome. Some of those obstacles exist within the United States Congress. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the Government will be monitoring developments in Congress to ensure that the agreements are effectively concluded and implemented in United States domestic legislation.
I hope that these provisions are successful and that the United States Administration are able to carry the agreements—agreements which they have signed in principle—through Congress. It will be a serious setback if there is some difficulty on that front. As I understand it, it will not be open to Congress to amend the legislation. It will either have to accept it en bloc or reject it en bloc. The Minister was right to pay tribute to the work carried out by Ambassador Strauss, who has now left that area of concern. A great deal of the credit for the success of these negotiations is due to the impetus that he gave them on behalf of the United States. Therefore, although we welcome the general agreement, it is important that the Government should listen to our comments, particularly about the textile industry and the importance of continuing to monitor these agreements.
When the negotiations began there was a great deal of scepticism whether they could ever be brought to a successful conclusion. As the world has suffered energy crisis after energy crisis and is now deeply involved in the middle of another one, and although, to put it mildly, the prospects for world trade are not encouraging, I believe that it is a considerable achievement that the initiative launched many years ago has now been brought to fruition. It is a countervailing force against some of the other more gloomy forces now affecting international trade. Unless the developed world pays attention to the orderly development of trading relationships, we could easily descend into the kind of trading which characterised the interwar period, with the slumps and all the other difficulties that then occurred.
I wish to remind the Minister of the selective safeguard clause. I very much doubt whether that clause will be agreed in these negotiations. I suspect that they will be concluded without such a clause but that some reference will be made to continuing negotiations. It is of the utmost importance that we have the capacity for selectivity in the application of import controls—otherwise one is forced to take blanket action against many countries, some of whose activities are not complained about. I doubt whether it will be possible to achieve it, but in the event that it is not possible to achieve it the Government should resist entering into a selective safeguard clause which is meaningless or which acts against our interests.
If such a course is impossible, I should be grateful if the Minister would say what attitude Her Majesty's Government will take to the use of article 19 of GATT which, in the opinion of many countries, already allows them to take selective action. I believe that the Council of Ministers came to such a conclusion at one of the meetings that I attended. It is important to achieve selectivity. There are some delicate industries now in this country. We can think of many which are now under severe economic pressure. However, unless we can achieve some selectivity, we shall face a difficult reaction in many countries.
The developing world has to understand that the developed countries are now in some difficulty. If there is not the possibility to take selective action, there will be a reaction against the liberalisation of world trade, which will be very serious in character. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the importance of selectivity. If we do not achieve a satisfactory agreement, let us not make one. If no agreement is achieved, let us be prepared to use article 19 of GATT to defend essential British national interests.
I wish to thank the Minister for his comprehensive report. The multilateral trade negotiations, unfortunately, are not at the forefront of our political and economic dialogue in this House or elsewhere in this country, but their importance can hardly be underestimated. I am glad that at last the House of Commons has managed to have at least one short debate on this important subject.

2.36 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I, too, congratulate the Government, and indeed their predecessors, on the progress of the Tokyo round and on the relatively successful conclusion of that negotiation, which is clearly of national and world interest.
I want to draw attention to what I see as a serious defect in the Tokyo round. I refer to the continuing inadequate and unfair treatment of Australia and New Zealand. The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) referred to that subject, but he appeared to be relatively happy with the concessions embodied in the draft—a draft which we have been able to examine only briefly. I wish that I could feel the same satisfaction about the outcome, but I do not.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in describing the progress made and in referring to the problems of Australia and New Zealand, said that the difficulty was that if one acted it would mean encroaching upon agricultural matters. What a remarkable reverse that amounts to. I remember when we charged no tariffs on food into this country and when our negotiations related to manufactured goods. Now we are saying that these matters are very difficult. However, it is not insuperably difficult to reach agreements on manufactured goods. But when we come to talk of reducing tariffs on food we enter into an extremely difficult area—to such an extent that the most exiguous degree of success appears to be held as a triumph.
The British Dominions of Australia and New Zealand have been treated scurvily in the Treaty of Rome, and indeed by this country, which had special responsibilities towards them. Those responsibilities are in no way discharged by the concessions obtained in the Tokyo round. I am glad that there is to be some concession about a few thousand tons of cheese and the quotas on frozen beef, but those are minimal matters. The fact is that, although Australia seems to be emerging with some success from its economic difficulties, New Zealand is in a very difficult position. That is happening because the United Kingdom entered into the Treaty of Rome on unfair terms and this put New Zealand in an awkward position. That position is now being

aggravated by the increase in the price of oil—a commodity imported by New Zealand. I must tell the Minister of State that this matter cannot be considered to be closed by the minimal concessions that have been extracted in this round. Something substantial has to be done about New Zealand in particular, but also, I like to think, about Australia.
The general concept of the Treaty of Rome, as the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North said, is the real trouble. We are working through the various GATT rounds towards the concept of almost free trade in manufactured articles. But, for some reason, the same goal is not accepted in relation to agriculture. There should not be this distinction and this dichotomy between manufactured goods and agriculture. All are branches of human industry, and the considerations that apply to one in favour of free movement between countries apply equally to the other. I should argue that they apply more to agriculture. The classic example in this context is New Zealand dairy products.
New Zealand is more competitive in dairy products. It produces the best and the cheapest dairy products in the world because of its climate. What better argument could exist for New Zealand to supply them to other countries less favoured in that respect? That would be the ordinary law of free competition, which we regard as the ark of the covenant in the GATT negotiations. But it is not applied because the Common Market treaty is based on the narrow interests of France and Germany and the agriculture surplus countries in the West of Europe. For that reason, the GATT negotiations are based upon the assumption that there is some fundamental difference of principle betweeen agriculture and manufactured goods.
If we are to save the prosperity of those British Dominions on the other side of the world, we must get away from the totally false distinction between manufactured goods and agriculture.
The next point that I wish to make, although related, is different. I question the value to us at all now of the Rome Treaty and the Common Market concept. I was always doubtful of the wisdom of entering into that bargain. I believe that people committed themselves, and took


up positions, before the success of the Kennedy round under GATT and at a time when there was widespread scepticism about the success of the Kennedy round. Once that round had attained expected success, it always seemed to me that the economic argument, to the extent that there was one, in favour of the Common Market treaty had been destroyed—the argument about a single internal market of great magnitude. Our experience in recent years has shown my view to be true.
Now that the Tokyo round has been concluded in the sense that the Minister of State has expounded to the House, it is surely beyond argument that there is no conceivable advantage to the United Kingdom in being inside the Common Market as defined by the Rome Treaty. I realise that both Front Benches are the prisoners of past statements and past momentums, if that is the correct plural. I do not expect a clear announcement this afternoon. I hope, however, that the inescapable logic of what my hon. Friend has been saying to the House will begin to mature and bear fruit. It would be realistic in eight years' time, when the existing tariffs have been reduced by 30 per cent. of their present level, to talk about the immense advantage of being inside this tariff fence, especially when one considers the alternative.
I am not hopeful. I throw the seed upon the ground, hoping that it is not barren. When we entered the Rome Treaty, we threw away the two great competitive advantages of British industry. One was cheap food—that was our big advantage in the world—and the other was that our tariffs were higher than other people's. By entering the Community, we lost the cheap food and became a dear food country. We also threw away the substantial tariff advantage, which would be so welcomed by British Leyland now.
I am not adopting a protectionist view. My hon. Friend rightly said that protectionism is not the reaction to the difficulties in the world. It is not. Competition is very important for improving the efficiency of management and bringing realism to the thoughts of trade unions. But do we throw away an existing degree of protection when nationally we are

going through one of our weakest periods, which still exists, at a time when the productivity of our people per head is about a third or half that on the Continent of Europe or the United States?
A fresh breeze of competition is healthy. To plunge a patient into a bath of ice is another matter. We threw away the two positive advantages that we possessed at a moment when we were least able to take the oncoming shock.
My hon. Friend announced to the House today the gradual extinction of the protective tariff around the European Community. In the interests of our overseas Commonwealth and also in the interests of the people of this island, it is time that we began to do the sums again and to ask ourselves whether the way ahead is not the way out.

2.47 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: This debate is too important for a Friday afternoon. I hope that in future the Government will leave Fridays for what has been traditionally the prerogative of the Back Bencher and Private Members' motions rather than bringing forward their own business. My view applies not only to this debate but to the earlier statement about EEC matters.
The arrangement of world trade is crucial to our industrial development, to the retention of jobs and the creation of new ones. We face a difficult future, not least because of some of the proposals. One of the problems is that we are not planning our international trade sufficiently. To say that the reduction of tariff barriers and the breath of competition will produce the answers is not enough.
We already face an amount of de-industrialisation in this country. I am talking not about widespread protectionism but about the right of the United Kingdom Government to make decisions about our economic position which involve the retention and the regeneration of British manufacturing industry. Unless we have the right, for example, to institute quota provisions over a wide area of manufacturing activity, we lose the opportunity to ensure that this regeneration takes place.
I am not talking of protecting outdated and inefficient industry. I am talking about industry which has been deprived of development during the whole of the


post-war period. I am also talking about the position of large sectors of our economy which have enormous power and strength—the multinationals which can make decisions affecting thousands of people and which are subject to little or no accountability.
An example is Thorn, the multinational television and audio manufacturer, which decided to close a factory in Bradford with a loss of 2,300 jobs. That means that there will be fewer opportunities in the area for the learning of skill and for employment. That decision was taken at the expense of importing 100,000 portable television sets from West Germany and South Korea.
That type of decision cannot be taken for ever. Industry will be totally extinguished by imports if we do not arrest the process of deindustrialisation, preserve jobs and encourage research and development into the creation of new jobs.
Our anti-dumping measures have been less than satisfactory. The Department of Trade has retained the unit which gives advice and guidance to manufacturers. However, the onus is on manufacturers to prove that competitors are dumping. It is almost impossible to discover the costs involved and to open competitors books. In practice the implementation of anti-dumping rules is most unsatisfactory.
The Minister talked about the removal of non-tariff barriers and cleaning up the rules of the world trading system. We all welcome that. If the negotiations result in that, all will be well and good. But we seem always to be at the receiving end of the application of non-tariff barriers. We always seem unwilling to apply non-tariff barriers ourselves, or incapable of doing so, even when an element of common sense is involved.
An example is the application of safety rules. If a West German manufacturer places equipment on exhibition and it is below the West German safety standards, a sign is placed upon it, it will not be sold and it will be removed from the exhibition. That does not happen here. Section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act has enormous powers, and yet there are no factory inspectors at our ports to examine equipment coming into the country. If we say that we

must clean up world trade and rid ourselves of the dubious non-tariff barriers, it is reasonable for us to have safety standards which are as high as those which operate in West Germany.
The Minister said that the new agreement concentrated on transparency. But we should let importers know that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act exists. Let factory inspectors examine manufactured goods at ports of entry and in exhibitions to ensure that they are safe. At present machinery and goods are imported and only if an accident occurs do we discover that there is a defect in that equipment. Other countries work differently.
The Minister said that industrial support was likely to be reduced. That is a matter for anxiety. We are not acting in total multilateral synchronisation with other countries. If we reduce our industrial support policies other countries will not match that reduction. There is no reason why they should.
The Government are reducing industrial support because of their belief in the political will-o'-the-wisp of private enterprise standing on its own feet and their faith in competition producing all the right answers. It happened before, in 1970. The Government, led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), said the same. All the money went not into manufacturing enterprise but into property. When the property bubble burst it nearly brought down the English banking system.
There is no guarantee that if we reduce industrial support there will be the draught of competition which will create new jobs and new opportunities. That is unlikely to happen. Our competitors will not operate the same policies. Countries such as West Germany, Japan and France have strong advice, guidance and investment policies which help develop and regenerate industry.
All that we shall do by reducing industrial support in the regions, and in general through the national schemes, is to place one of our industrial hands behind our back while our competitors forge ahead. It is absurd to operate such a policy.
It is not a question of whether the Government will perform a U-turn on industrial policy but when they will do it.


They will turn at some stage. They cannot do otherwise, because the consequences of their policies will be the loss of thousands of jobs and the decline of industry.
I turn to the question of the Government's procurement code. The Minister says that this will be more relaxed and that it will allow a wider degree of tendering by international bodies. Once again in the EEC we are conforming to the rules when others do not. I tabled a question about the number of advertisements that we had inserted over a certain period. I discovered that we had advertised 250 contracts while the total from the EEC membership was about a dozen. That is absurd. Why do we have to go through that rigorous procedure when other member States do not? Why should we do that when we are not operating at parity, when West Germany and France have a more buoyant economy? We open our doors to international tendering for our contracts but other EEC members do not. That is a matter that must be watched extremely carefully. I hope that we shall receive an assurance from the Government.
The Minister referred to selectivity and safeguard action against imports. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) that probably nothing will happen in those vital areas.
One of the most sensitive issues during the renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement was that the textile industry faced sudden massive imports from countries which were not foreseen to be sources of textile products. There was enormous disruption, which led to job losses.
I know that the Department of Trade is dominated by free-traders to the virtual exclusion of all else. They think that we should adhere to the philosophy of free trade, but it should not be adhered to at the expense of jobs. Those who have comfortable, well-paid jobs with index-linked pension schemes should bear in mind that disruption caused by cheap imports means the loss of jobs in the United Kingdom. It means the closure of mills and factories. Therefore, we should press strongly for selectivity and the possibility of a safeguard clause against a disruptive level of imports that will threaten jobs and industry.
I remind the House of what can happen. As a first step we may accept the introduction of imports. We have a responsibility to the rest of the world and we want to ensure a reasonable level of trade. The introductory level may be 20 per cent. but it may climb, as it did with cotton yarn, to about 80 per cent. of the total United Kingdom market. If that happens, the United Kingdom industry diminishes to a level at which it is no longer able to support research and development organisations, and at which companies cannot maintain their own research and development programmes. Therefore, the industry and the companies lose out.
However, the companies of the exporting countries will carry out research and development work in either textile products or manufacturing techniques. The result is that British industry falls behind yet again. We must ensure that suitable criteria are agreed and that we have reserve powers of selectivity.
I intervened in the Minister's speech to ask him about a social clause. That is frequently mentioned when discussing the Tokyo round. It was raised by both sides of the textile industry. The Minister said that negotiations had not yet finished and that the matter might well be discussed. Unlike some Conservative Members, I do not think that competition is the universal panacea. That belief is held by a diminishing number of Conservative Members which will become even smaller as time shows that it is a false premise.
When I talk to industrialists they say that they are prepared to face competition as long as it is fair. However, they now have to face unfair competition. We have employment protection and health and safety legislation. There are Acts on the statute book that require that wages should be paid in cash and in full. The Truck Acts date from the nineteenth century. Some of the provisions of that legislation can be circumvented by some employers, but the fact remains that we have employment legislation which is designed to ensure that reasonable standards are enforced. These standards are often enforced through the ILO Convention. I have compared the performance of Hong Kong with that of the United Kingdom, and it seems that Hong Kong put into effect 24 applications of the convention,


whereas the United Kingdom applied about 75.
When I was a Minister I said that workers in Hong Kong were exploited. I am happy to say that that caused enormous ructions in the Hong Kong Assembly. Members went berserk when they heard that a United Kingdom Minister had said that. Apparently we were supposed to keep our mouths shut and ignore the differential system of employment between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong.
The position is the same in South Korea, where employees work long hours and there is little labour legislation. The trade union movement is virtually nonexistent, as are the rights of workers. We want to ensure the addition of a social clause to a selectivity provision so that we may say "The United Kingdom market is open to you to a reasonable degree. We want to help you, but at the same time we want to ensure that minimum levels of employment legislation are applied in your country, so that workers are not exploited in the grossly offensive way that often happens in countries such as South Korea and Hong Kong." All these matters must be part of the continuing negotiations.
We are grateful for the Government background paper. I regret that a copy was not in the Vote Office, as the Minister claimed. Apparently it was in the Library. I do not know at what time it was available in the Library, but it was not there early this afternoon. The Minister will therefore appreciate that I have not had time to absorb all the documents on this complicated matter.
The Minister said that the final text, when agreed, would be an important document. He is absolutely right. Will he bring to the notice of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the need for a further debate on the final text? I hope that this is a preliminary debate on that route.
I have received representations from the West Riding wool and textile industry. I hope that the Minister will not mind my using the words "West Riding". They were deleted from our language by executive fiat of a previous Conservative Government. That caused

deep and continuing resentment in the West Riding.
The West Riding wool and textile industry was greatly concerned at the tariff that it faced in America. According to paragraph 12 of the background paper, the tariff on woven woollen cloth of over $9 per pound is to be reduced from 44·4 per cent. to 33 per cent. We have a good trading relationship in many areas with America. If we reach multilateral arrangements which are to our reciprocal advantage, all well and good. However, we must ensure that we do not grant concessions, without reserving rights of our own, to a point where our industry is severely damaged. We have gained a tariff reduction of about 11 per cent. However, the West Riding textile industry still faces problems over outward processing, on which the EEC Commission appears not to be acting with sufficient speed. Although we made a modest gain, there is still the problem of outward processing.
I agree with my right hon. Friend on the question of the renewal of the multifibre arrangement. It may be that as the notion of international competition and free trade is still echoing around, somehow the MFA talks appear to be some time away. The Minister should be well prepared for the MFA renegotiations. If not, the Commission might well try to spring on him the kind of measure it sprang on the previous Government. It tried a number of dodges to reduce the standards. We sternly resisted them. It is to the credit of the previous Government that the MFA is so strong and gives greater quota protection than ever before.
The MFA must continue. We do not expect a guarantee of the exact area of quota protection or quota coverage to be given. Confidence would be given to the industry if the Minister said that when the MFA came up for renewal it would be part of the Government's stance to maintain an adequate position for the industry, so that it could have confidence that it would not simply disappear under a huge pile of imported sensitive items and become extinct. I hope that the Government are concerned to renew the MFA when it comes up for renewal in two years' time.
I hope that this debate is not the conclusion of the matter and that the Leader of the House may afford a further opportunity for debating this important issue.
The background paper is of the greatest importance. The only previous article on the subject appears in the Department of Trade and Industry weekly magazine, which has a somewhat narrow and highly specialised circulation. I hope that the Minister will issue further papers and supply them to the Vote Office and the Library somewhat earlier than the day of the debate.

3.10 p.m.

Mr. Parkinson: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to several matters which were raised in the debate.
Concerning the missing background paper, I am now informed that the paper has been available in the Library since Tuesday. I am sorry that hon. Members have had difficulties in obtaining copies of it, but it was there. I misled the House in suggesting that it was in the Vote Office; I should have said the Library.
I deal first with some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith), who was Secretary of State for Trade at the time that these negotiations were coming to a conclusion. It was not, therefore, entirely surprising that this afternoon he welcomed the outcome of the negotiations. It would, in fact, have been extremely difficult for him to do otherwise, because a great deal of the credit or blame attaches to him and his predecessor. We think that in this instance he did a first-class job, unlike many of his colleagues in the previous Government. I compliment him on it. We were quite happy to accept the outcome of his negotiations.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned three matters with which I should like to deal in particular. One of them was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). With regard to the muli-fibre arrangement, anyone who has read the speeches by the Secretary of State and myself about it—we have each made several speeches in the House and outside—will know that we recognise the importance of the textile industry We

realise that it is not scared of fair competition and has taken very considerable steps to reinvest and to equip itself with modern machinery. It is an industry in which management and staff work very well together. Over the last few years 400,000 have left the industry, and it is making arrangements to restructure itself and to make itself capable of facing any fair competition. We have every intention as a Government of ensuring that it is not exposed to unfair competition or put in an impossible position.
The arrangement has two and a half years to run, and during that time we shall be able to see how it works, where it needs changing and where it needs modifying. In my brief time in the Department, I have already been approached by textile companies pointing out some of the disadvantages to various sections of the industry from the way in which the agreement is working.
The Government are not prepared to commit themselves to saying here and now that the MFA in its present form will be renegotiated completely as it is, but we recognise that the arrangement has been welcomed in this country and outside. We also realise that there will be arrangements made for the orderly marketing of textiles in the future. We should like to keep our negotiating hand open. We share many of the ambitions for the industry mentioned this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Keighley.
I turn now to the matter of selective safeguards and the necessity for them, about which we are all agreed. However, we disagree about the fact that there seems to be a notion that it will not be possible to obtain a worthwhile selective seafeguards clause. At a time when that is about to be negotiated, we do not think that we should enter the negotiations in that frame of mind. We are determined in every way we can to press the case for a selective safeguards clause.
We believe that it is an important and vital reassurance to our industries that they will not become the subject of an attack on a narrow sector from, say, a very large quantity of low-cost goods, perhaps partially dumped, which could cause lasting harm. We believe that it is very important that Governments should have the right to act.
If there were a failure to obtain a safeguard, we would use article 19 effectively to make sure that we could do what we wanted to do. But we would still prefer to press for a meaningful selective safeguards clause. I thought that I had made clear in my opening remarks that we would not welcome something called a safeguard if it had no practical worth. I repeat that for the benefit of the House.
The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North mentioned Government procurement, and again I accept many of the points he raised. The hon. Member for Keighley also made the point that the British Government had been fulfilling their obligations under the EEC agreement, though a number of our EEC partners did not seem to be so enthusiastic. Nevertheless, there are signs that France and Germany now recognise that they have been remiss in this. We shall continue to press them to make sure that we are not the only country that observes the rules.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), in a typically interesting and incisive speech, made the point that we have not done enough for Australia and New Zealand. I accept that criticism. However, successive Governments—our predecessors, and certainly ourselves—have impressed upon the Community the importance of making arrangements that safeguard the interests of Australia and New Zealand. What has been achieved is a great improvement and advance on what was proposed originally.
I accept that there is a distortion in international trade because of the rigid rules in regard to agriculture. There is a strongly held view that the CAP, in its present form, will have to be renegotiated in due course and will have to change. There are rigidities built into it which could produce similar rigidities in other areas of international trade. I accept a number of my hon. and learned Friend's criticisms.
My hon. and learned Friend said that he was not expecting an announcement from me this afternoon that we intended to withdraw from our obligations under the EEC treaty. He will not, therefore, be disappointed when I tell him that I shall not be making any such announcement.

His views on the EEC are well-known. I do not think that they are widely shared, but it is recognised that they are held very sincerely and that he never fails to promote them.
The hon. Member for Keighley made a characteristic speech. He can take that as a compliment or a criticism, depending on his point of view. He made one or two assertions which I cannot accept. First, he asserted that we are always on the receiving end, and that it is the British who play the fair trade game and that we do not do any of the things for which we criticise other people. There is another school of thought which says that if we look at the range of regional aids, subsidies, grants and as on which proliferated under the last Government, we see that we were becoming pacemakers, in our own way, in unfair trade.
I was present at a hearing in the United States before the Federal Trade Commission, when it was argued that no private enterprise steel company could afford to lose £10 million per week and still press on with its investment programme, and that companies that could must be trading unfairly. That is another point of view from the one put forward by the hon. Member for Keighley.

Mr. Cryer: I am sure that the Minister will accept that all the regional aids under the last Government were approved by the EEC Commission and that it was at the insistence of the EEC Commission that the temporary employment subsidy was phased out. So even in that respect we followed the rules.

Mr. Parkinson: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. May I take him up on another matter? He talked about our plans for reducing a number of supports to industry. We are not doing it for ideological reasons. We are doing it because they are very expensive and do not work. We are doing it because we do not believe that large sums of money, dispersed by politicians into marginal seats to try to buy votes, is the way to regenerate industry or do the country any good. It might do a party in government some good in the short term, although the indications at the last election were that even then it does not work. Those are the reasons why we are reviewing this very expensive area of Government expenditure.
The hon. Member for Keighley talked about the loss of jobs because of cheap imports. I know that there is a strongly held view in the Labour Party that we should implement the alternative strategy, and that behind the walls of protection we should modernise ourselves. I have just come back from the UNCTAD conference in Manila, where I met representatives from a number of the lesser developed countries. It is a fact that we run a substantial trade surplus with these countries. It is also a fact that if those countries are to be able to buy from us, they must be able to sell us some of the commodities which they are capable of and good at producing.
Textiles is an area in question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the developing countries tend to set up textile industries. He may have seen some of the work that has been done recently, showing that although we have undoubtedly lost jobs because of cheap imports from those countries, we have also gained a considerable number of jobs—probably more—because of our exports to them. I sometimes think that the hon. Member for Keighley takes a rather simplistic view of these things.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a further debate. I do not wish to raise his hopes. He seems to be in a minority in having hopes of this kind. I suggest that today's attendance in the Chamber does not demonstrate a massive enthusiasm for debating this subject again. As he knows, there is a shortage of time available. It may be that we could achieve the end he desires by meeting later in the negotiations, when I could explain to him what has happened. However, I shall put the hon. Gentleman's point to the Leader of the House.
I want to emphasise a point made by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North. I believe that implementing the MTN, as renegotiated, is absolutely critical if we are to maintain an open trading system. I believe that the outcome of the Tokyo round will probably be a great deal more decisive, and will have a great deal more effect on the standard of living and prospects of our people than many of the other measures that will fall to be implemented by this House. I am glad that a worthwhile package has emerged. I am glad that

those who have spoken in the debate feel that way. I am sorry that not more hon. Members have been present, but I think that it has been a worthwhile debate.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — DUKE OF WELLINGTON (PAPERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]

3.23 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: You will of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be familiar with the significance of Wellington's career in British history, but since the emphasis in the public mind tends perhaps to lie on the military side, it is worth while stressing the political dimension.
Wellington had a political career of great importance after Waterloo, and it is likely to be there that the interest of most of the scholars who use his papers will centre. As Prime Minister in 1828–30, a candidate for the premiership again in 1832 and 1834, and a member of Peel's Cabinets in 1834–35 and 1841–46, he was at the heart of Government in a period of major changes in British society and politics. He was a key figure in the crises of Catholic emancipation, parliamentary reform, and the repeal of the Corn Laws.
Wellington was also of central significance in the affairs of the Tory Party for some 20 years, when Peel was striving to adapt it to the needs of an increasingly urban and industrial world. Except in the Countess of Longford's biography, Wellington's papers have so far been little exploited, either for the general political history of the period, or for the study of the development of the Tory and Conservative Party. It would certainly be Southampton university's aim to encourage research in both areas, where it has some existing expertise, and where the holdings of the Wellington pamphlets and parliamentary papers can fruitfully be used in juxtaposition with the manuscripts.
We should not, however, forget the military side, from Wellington's Indian and Peninsular campaigns and Waterloo to his period as commander-in-chief of the Army, and we should wish to remember also the local connections, symbolised by his lord lientenancy of Hampshire and residence at Stratfield Saye.
From all these points of view, the Wellington papers form a collection of great richness and extent, which would very much enlarge the resources and attraction of Southampton as a centre for research in modern British history, and would open up many possibilities of contact with scholars elsewhere.
In passing, I must stress that Southampton university has informed me that it has been very fairly treated by the Royal Commission on historical manuscripts and has had every opportunity and courtesy while putting its case. The purpose of this debate is to bring all the local points direct to my right hon. Friend.
Already in the Southampton university library, put on deposit by the eighth Duke of Wellington in 1977, there is the largest collection of materials relating to the first Duke. To give some idea of the extent of this material, the collection of Sessional Papers of the House of Lords 1801–2 to 1835 used by the first Duke durng his political career totals 236 volumes. These were deposited by the seventh Duke in 1953 when he was chancellor of the university and subsequently refurbished by the university library together with a collection of Wellington pamphlets, 3,300 in all, principally from the periods 1814–18 and 1827–41, and reflect the Duke's varied interests. Many carry notes of dedication by the author, and some have associated correspondence attached. These total 841 volumes.
The collection has been fully catalogued and is available in hard copy and micro-form. The catalogue is now computer-produced.
There is also a famous collection of parliamentary papers—the Hansard Second Series of Reports, Accounts, Papers and Bills 1801–26. This is an incomplete set, subject-arranged, specialzly prepared for the first Duke by Luke Graves Hansard. Only five sets were made at the time, and only one other is known to exist—strangely enough in the House of

Commons Library—213 volumes in all. Once again, the Southampton university library refurbished all of these volumes.
One of the points that I must stress is the very strong links between the Wellington family and Southampton university. The fourth Duke was the first president of the university college on its attainment of that status in 1902. The second Duke was appointed president of the university in 1949 and the seventh Duke was confirmed as the first chancellor of Southampton university on its attainment of that status in 1952. The Southampton university library when making a submission to the Royal Commission on 7 March 1979 emphasised the links as described, but gave no indication of the scope of the care that would be taken with the papers if they were placed with Southampton university. Now that it has had the chance to examine the papers, it has come up with the following observations.
The collection of papers is substantially larger than published statements have led one to believe, and it is understood that there are over 60,000 documents at the Royal Commission alone. It is estimated that that is between one-quarter and one-third of the total collection and therefore amounts to the staggering figure of between 200,000 and 250,000 documents.
Approximately 80 per cent. of the papers at the British Library are in sound condition for their age, 20 per cent. will require special conservation measures and a small quantity are in extremely poor condition. There is a problem of how many papers can be rescued. Therefore, the overwhelming necessity will be the conservation of the papers. It is considered that all papers will need to be fumigated as a precautionary measure before bringing them into close proximity with other library material.
Southampton university has examined the way in which papers are stored at the Royal Commission, and the British Library research and development department is carrying out a similar process of treating the Blenheim papers. In due course it would seem that the best approach is to attach the documents individually to trimmed sheets so that they can be accommodated in folio binders.
We consider that in addition to fumigation further conservation measures will


definitely be needed. We wish to discuss these with the interested and expert parties in the light of a more detailed assessment of the collection.
It is provisionally estimated that the papers will require nine man-years of conservation work. The intention would be to start cataloguing the papers as soon as possible, and the tentative provisional estimate is that there is 15 man-years of work. From the beginning it is proposed to make use of the expertise in automated cataloguing built up by the Southampton university library since 1970 which, as I said earlier, is computer-controlled.
A serious consideration for my right hon. Friend in his decision is accommodation. The shelving requirements imposed by the collection are not large and amount to the equivalent of about 1,500 folio volumes. The library expects the completion of its extension building by the autumn, and that will provide the additional space needed.
The accommodation reserved for the collection would need to meet the following criteria. It would have to be capable of accommodating the collection and the associated Wellington material already on deposit. It would have to be secure. The temperature, humidity and cleanliness of the atmosphere would have to be adequately controlled. The accommodation would have to provide sufficient room for a library staff member and space for eight readers. Additionally, ample laying-out space would be essential, especially in the earlier years.
The Southampton university library has considered these requirements. If the papers are deposited with the university it would be proper for broader national interests to be associated with their management. The university has a parliamentary papers research committee that promotes the interests associated with the library's outstanding collection of nineteenth century parliamentary papers. It would be proposed to establish a Wellington papers research committee and nominate to that committee prominent figures who would have concern for the proper management of the collection.
The financial implications of receiving the papers are considerable. Urgent efforts are being made to secure the necessary

financial guarantee, possibly from outside sources. The university's case for being considered to have special Wellington connections is good. It will treat the papers, if they are deposited, as a resource of the most exceptional kind rather than as one more addition to a large and distinguished holding.
Having put the case for the two major Wellington collections to come together, the university of Southampton would in no way wish to overstate its claim. We shall without demur abide by the decision of my right hon. Friend.
It is fair to state in conclusion that Mr. Bernard Naylor, the university librarian, Professor Paul Smith and Mr. Peter Cockton were instrumental in helping me prepare this speech. The team at Southampton university is energetic and keen. My right hon. Friend need not fear that if he made the decision for which I ask the collection would not remain in pristine condition and be available to all those who come to the university.

3.35 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) both on his initiative in obtaining this debate and on the manner in which he addressed the House. It was, if he will allow me to say so, a most enlightening and informative speech, extremely erudite and well argued, and if this decision were to be taken on the eloquence, the sincerity, the economy and the logic of my hon. Friend, the papers could go off to Southampton tomorrow. Unhappily, other considerations have had to be taken into account besides my hon. Friend's persuasive advocacy.
I am sure that the University of Southampton owes my hon. Friend a great debt of gratitude for the way in which he has put forward his view. I certainly am interested in the University of Southampton—I have associations with it myself. My associations with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are perhaps better known, as also are my associations with Harvard and Yale, but in fact I spent a period at Southampton university as a lecturer, and I know very


well the high standards of scholarship which are associated with it.
I welcome, then, this opportunity of hearing the university's case for receiving the Wellington papers put at length, and it gives me the opportunity of describing the procedure which is followed in the Office of the Arts and Libraries for deciding the institution to which collections of papers like this go. The procedure is established and I intend to follow it in this case and in other cases like it. First, I want to say a few words about the Wellington papers themselves.
The papers, which have been accepted for the nation in lieu of estate duty, comprise the entire military, official, diplomatic and political correspondence and papers of the first Duke of Wellington, better known, of course, as the Iron Duke. There are, furthermore, some papers from his brother, the Marquis Wellesley and the first Baron Cowley. In all, there are over 100,000 individual documents covering the whole of the great duke's career from 1790 until his death in 1853 at the reasonable age of 83. Many of these documents are, of course, in the duke's own hand.
The Duke of Wellington's service to his country was remarkable both in its length and in its variety. He achieved military fame for his successes in the Napoleonic Wars; he became commander-in-chief of the Army. But, of course, he also had pre-eminent success in political life. He served as a Cabinet Minister for 13 years, and for three years held the highest political office open to a subject, that of Prime Minister.
Every aspect of the Duke's outstanding career is represented in his papers, and therefore they form a unique historical source for knowledge of the period. His own letters and memoranda are a testimony to his energy, his mastery of detail, clarity of thought and dedication to duty, not to mention what has endeared him to subsequent generations, his unique forcefulness of expression.
So many expressions have passed into general usage and general knowledge which can be associated with the Duke. One of the best known is the famous phrase "Publish and be damned". Also, it was the Duke who paid that tribute to the British soldier that nobody would

dare to pay in such terms today when he said he was
the scum of the earth.
Although he was a rather reluctant, lukewarm alumnus of Eton, it was he who informed succeeding generations that
the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton".
One day when he was accosted during a walk in the park and asked whether he was Mr. Jones he replied:
If you believe that you will believe anything.
He also made a famous remark on the occasion of marriage
I have always believed that marriage should be as cheerful as the circumstances allow.
Also many a marriage would have been enlivened by his reference to Queen Caroline
May all your wives be like her.
I conclude my remembrance of the Duke's remarks with the advice that he gave to a new Member of Parliament. He said:
Don't quote Latin, say what you have to say and then sit down.
That is good advice, but I certainly have never been able to follow it, unlike my hon. Friend.
This unique collection is now in the possession of the nation. There has been an investment from the national land fund of £372,600—one of the better investments from that fund. If any collection is accepted in payment, either in whole or part, for tax liabilities, the Government must satisfy themselves that the items in question are pre-eminent for national, artistic, scientific or historic interest. There is no doubt that the Wellington papers are truly pre-eminent in this sense, and I am delighted that they have been acknowledged as such.
I now have to consider, as Minister with responsibility for the arts and libraries, which institution is appropriate in all the circumstances to take these papers into its care. The decision of allocation is essentially ministerial. In order to reach the best decision the Minister must take account of all relevant circumstances, and to do so he must have access to expert, authoritative and impartial advice. Therefore, in this matter I shall follow the lines of established procedure. The procedure followed is essentially the same whether


the items concerned are art objects, documents or manuscripts. For art objects the Minister receives advice from the Standing Committee on Museums and Galleries. That would not be an appropriate body to advise on manuscripts.
As a source of expert advice on the allocation of manuscripts I am, fortunately, able to call upon the Royal Commission on historical manuscripts under the learned chairmanship of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning. This distinguished body has the central function of identifying and recording all the surviving collections of papers that are of value for the study of history outside the public records and of ensuring their suitable protection against loss or dispersal. That is its day-by-day business. In cases such as the Wellington papers, however, it is, I believe, the ideal body to advise me.
The Royal Commission will, therefore, consider the names of all institutions interested in acquiring the papers and advise which one it thinks is the most suitable. In tendering its advice, the Commission will take into account a number of factors. Among the points to be considered will be these: first, what is the most appropriate home for the papers, bearing in mind the national interest and the nature of the collection? Secondly, to what extent do the existing holdings, resources and associations of each of the interested institutions have a bearing on the issue, and are these important enough, in any one instance, to outweigh the claims of others?
I listened with great interest to the links between Southampton university and the Wellington family, which were outlined by my hon. Friend. Another factor to be considered is the ability of the various institutions to display the material to the public and also to make provision for scholars. The third consideration is security and the physical conditions that should be provided by each institution. The point of concern here includes the facilities available for storage, photography, cataloguing, repairs and, most important, conservation. The papers must be well cared for, and I have noted very carefully what my hon. Friend has to say in this regard.
The papers will be in trust for the nation. They are part of our heritage and

must be accorded the protection that posterity is entitled to expect from us. The standards of care available must be fitting to this century and reflect our present-day knowledge of what is required for conservation and preservation.
Yet another point for the Commission to take into account will be the wishes of the executors, although, of course, these cannot be a binding consideration on the Minister. The modern habit of ignoring the wishes of testators and executors, if at all possible, does not commend itself to me. We have heard the arguments for the papers to go to Southampton university library. The university clearly has a good case and it has been excellently made by its eloquent supporter, my hon. Friend. Certainly that case must be given full and sympathetic consideration. The arts and related subject and national treasures should not, in my view, be concentrated entirely in the capital.
One of the policies that I intend to pursue as Minister with responsibility for the arts is to see that the regions get their fair share of our heritage. I note with interest the initiative taken by my distinguished predecessor Lord Eccles with regard to the railway museum, which is now happily housed in York where it has become one of the great attractions in the North of England. Previously that museum was here in the capital.
I also know that the university has already laid its case before the Commission, and that is the right course for it to follow. I think that we can take it that the Commission will not be unaware of what has passed in this House today. However, I reflect on my own remark, made somewhat ruefully, that if one wants to keep a secret, the best place to tell it is on the Floor of this House because the Press Gallery is not always as full as it might be.
I find it a most heartening feature that the university library of Southampton should have shown such initiative and keenness to secure the allocation of the Wellington papers. I am pleased because I believe that the enthusiasm displayed by the university is an accurate reflection of a growing interest in and concern about the future of our national heritage. People everywhere, not only experts but


ordinary citizens, share this concern, and I believe that it is widespread throughout the country. I see it as one of the challenges of the office that I occupy to reflect this feeling, to give a lead to it, and to offer it constructive encouragement. It is, in my view, one of the most heartening developments of the present day.
We must keep in mind the fact that there are other claimants to the papers, besides Southampton. It is true that the Commission will wish to be impartial in its assessment of the claims of the various applicants. When the Commission has done so and reached an agreed view, it will tender its advice to me. I gather that this will not be for another month or so, and I am sure that in a matter of this importance it is wise not to go too far. If I may ignore once again the great Duke's advice, festina lente.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot anticipate either the Commission's advice or my own eventual decision, and he would not expect me to do so. At this stage I am not in a position to say what either of these may be, but may I make clear to my hon. Friend that the eventual decision is definitely one that I shall take myself. I greatly value the advice given me by the various advisory bodies which are set up in these matters, but I do not take the view—and it would be inaccurate and unconstitutional to do so—that the advice given me by an advisory body is binding. It

is true that such advice must be given its due weight and that it would be foolish to ignore or underestimate it. However, the ultimate decision is a ministerial one, and I must take into account not only the advice of any relevant Commission but other considerations, including speeches such as that delivered by my hon. Friend in this debate. I must bear all those matters in mind when finally I reach my decision on the matter.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for taking the trouble to raise this subject this afternoon. I am sure that his action can do nothing but good. I shall do my best to reach the right decision in a reasonably short space of time when the Commission has reported and there is time to consider all the factors involved.

Mr. Hill: With the leave of the House. I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for his consideration and for the interesting quotations that he gave. One that he did not mention was that applied to the British soldier:
I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they terrify me.
My right hon. Friend has not frightened me today. He has encouraged Southampton university library and myself to think that our plea has not fallen on deaf ears.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Four o'clock.